HomeMy WebLinkAbout6 - Status Report on Integration of Strategic Plans and Master PlansCITY OF BOULDER
WATER RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD INFORMATION ITEM
MEETING DATE: November 2Q 2006
AGENDA TITLE: Status Report on Integration of Strategic Plans and Master Plans
PREPARING DEPARTMENT:
Robert E. Williams - Director of Public Work for Utilities
Robert J. Harberg - Utilities Planning and Project Management Coordinator
Carol Ellinghouse - Water Resources Coordinator
Bret Linenfelser - Water Quality and Emironmental Services Coordinator
Floyd Bebler - Wastewater Treatment Coordinator
Randy Crittenden - Water Treatment Coordinator
Randy Earley - Engineering Proj ect Manager
Annie Noble - Engineering Project Manager
Douglas Sullivan - Engineering Project Manager
Joe Taddeucci - Engineering Project Manager
Karen Medde - EnQineerinQ Prolect ManaQer
FISCAL IMPACT: None
PURPOSE: This memorandum provides a status report on plans to integrate various strategic
plans and master plans in the Utilities Division.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Utilities staff is in the process of updating vazious strategic and master plans consistent with the
recentty adopted policies of the Business Plan (see Attachment A). The Business Plan is
intended to be a link between the Boulder Vailey Comprehensive Plan (BVCP), master
plans/strategic plans, sub-community and area plans, and annual budgets. Master and strategic
plans are developed consistent with the policies, plans, and population and employment
projections outlined in the BVCP. They provide a common city framework for planning the
delivery and funding of services, facilities, and programs. The facility and service priorities and
funding plan strategies established through the master and strategic planning process provide the
basis for operational budgeting and capital improvement programming.
AGENDA ITEM # Page 1
BACKGROUND:
Master planning has been an important part of developing and prioritizing the various programs and
projects of the Utilities Division for many years. Cunent(y, the following important master/strategic
plans have been adopted:
A. Water Iltility
1. Raw Water Master Plan - 1989 (Summary provided as Attachment B)
2. Treated Water Master Plan - 2000 (Summary provided as Attachment C)
B. Wastewater Utility
1. Wastewater Collection System Master Plan - 2003 (Summary provided as Attachment D)
2. Wastewater Treatment Master Plan - 2002 (Summary provided as Attachment E)
C. Stormwater and Flood Management Utility
i. Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater (CFS) Master Plan - 2004 (Summary provided as
Attachment F)
2. Stormwater Collection System Master Plan - 1984 and Gunbarrel Area Outfall Systems
Planning Study - 1987 (Summary provided as Attachment G)
3. Boulder and Adjacent County Major Drainageway Planning - 1986 Summary provided as
Attachment H)
4. Greenways Master Plan - 2001 (Summary provided as Attachment I)
ANALYSIS:
The comprehensive plan states that the "planning period" for master plans is to be fifteen years.
The planning horizon in the 2005 Major Update to Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan is 2030
at "realistic build out." Strategic plans may cover a shorter period of time. For example,
Information Technology uses a three-year planning horizon due to the obsolescence of the
associated systems and equipment. Master plans are the mechanism that the City of Boulder uses
to translate missions and long-range goals into a framework for action. Master plans aze
generally envisioned for line departments that provide direct services to the publia Strategic
plans are likely more appropriate for intemal service departments or smaller operations.
Departments will create the appropriate type of plan for the operations for which they are
responsible. As part of the strategic and master planning process, the following key components
will be developed:
1. Investment strategies to guide the prioritization of services/programs,
2. Service standazds, and
3. Three funding plans: fiscally constrained, action, and vision.
AGENDA ITEM # Page 2
The Bouider Business Plan will evolve over time, but these elements are the initial focus. For
further information on the content of master plans and strategic plans, consult the Departmental
Master Planning and Strategic Planning Handbook (see Attachment J). Based on this guidance,
the following strategic/master plans are envisioned:
A. Water Utility
1. Water Utility Master Plan - This plan will consolidate the three strategic plans
identified below. It is anticipated that work on this plan will begin in 2008.
2. Source Water Strategic Plan - This document will replace and update the 1989 Raw
Water Master Plan. The scope of this plan has been developed and is presented as
Attachment K. It will include information from the on-going Boulder Reservoir WTP
Water Quality Study. It is anricipated this plan will be completed in late 2007.
3. Treated Water Strategic Plan - This plan will update the 2000 Treated Water Master.
It wiil include important new information concerning recently promulgated drinking
water regulations and improved analysis methods for the treated water storage, pumping
and distribution system. The recently completed study of the Betasso WTP and the on-
going Boulder Reservoir WTP Water Quality Study will also be important pieces of
information for this plan. It is anticipated work on this plan will begin in late 2007 or
early 2008.
4. Water Quality 5trategic Plan - The Water Quality Strategic Plan (WQSP) seeks to
address the city's water quality issues in a comprehensive manner. Cunently, city water
quality issues are addressed in a number of different master/strategic plans that are
focused on specific water quality program areas such as drinking water and wastewater.
Although the various water quality interests of the city are addressed within these plans,
overlapping impacts and potential efficiencies of combined efforts have pointed to the
need to develop a comprehensive strategic plan, which focuses more broadly on water
quality issues. This plan lays out the city's water quality goals for the first time in order
to provide direction on current and future water quality management efforts. The plan is
intended to:
• Provide overarching direction for quality management & protection efforts;
• Take advantage of common city efforts to more effectively protect water quality;
• Establish methods and systems to monitor progress towards meeting water
quality goals; and
• Create a user friendly, functional tool to assess water quality components of city
projects.
It is anticipated this plan will be completed in mid 2007.
B. Wastewater Utility
1. Wastewater Utility Master Plan - This plan will consolidate the three strategic plans
identified below. It is anticipated that work on this plan will begin in 2007.
2. Wastewater Collection System Strategic Plan - This plan will replace the 2003
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan. This plan identified numerous capacity
limitations in and recommendations for improvements to the existing collection system.
AGENDA ITEM # Page 3
As a result, a comprehensive elevation survey of the existing system has been completed
and this information will be used determine the validity of the capacity limitations and
associated recommendations. It is anticipated work on the revised collection system plan
will begin in 2007.
3. Wastewater Treatment Strategic Plan - This plan will use the information from the
2002 Wastewater Treatment Master Plan and add information concerning the ciry's
decision regarding biosolids handling, dewatering and recycling. Work on consolidating
this information will begin in late 2006 and be completed in early 2007.
4. Water Quality Strategic Plan (see description under A.4 above.)
C. Stormwater and Flood Management Dtility
1. Stormwater and Flood Management Utility Master Plan - This plan will consolidate the
three strategic plans identified below. This plan will eventually replace the 2004
Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater (CFS) Master Plan. Because the CFS was recently
developed and includes information regazding all critical stormwater and flood management
capital projects and programs, updating this information is less critical. Also, information
from the strategic plans discussed below will need to be developed to inform development of
the overall utility master plan.
2. Stormwater Strategic Plan - This plan will replace the 1984 Stormwater Collection System
Master Plan. CFS identified the scope of this plan to include both drainage and water quality
issues associated with minor storm events. The design frequency for these storm events is in
the 2-5 year range. It is anticipated this plan will be comp-eted in early 2007 in order to
provide information for the 2008 budget process.
3. Major Drainageway Floodplain Maps and Flood Mitigation Plans - Floodplain maps
and mitigation plans for Boulder Creek and associated tributaries were comprehensively
developed in the 1980s. Updating the maps and associated mitigation plans is costly and time
consuming. For these reasons city staff has selected to update this information on a
drainageway specific basis. Recently completed updates have included:
• Bear Canyon Creek (Flood mapping updated in 2003 after significant flood
mitigation improvements were completed between Foothills Parkway and Broadway
during the 1990s.)
• Goose Creek (Flood mapping updated in 2004 afrer signifieant flood mitigation
improvements were completed between Foothills Parkway and Folsom St. during
the late 1990s and early 2000s.)
• Boulder Creek (Flood mapping updated in 1995 upstream of 17`~ St. after significant
flood mitigation improvement were completed in the vicinity of Boulder High
School.)
On-going projects include:
• Fourmile Canyon / Wonderland Creeks (Flood mapping updated in 2005, flood
mitigation planning anticipated to be completed in 2007.)
• South Bouder Creek (Flood mapping anticipated to be completed in 20p7, flood
mitigation planning scheduled for 2008-2009.)
Other drainageways whose floodplain mapping and mitigation plans will be updated in the
future include:
AGENDA ITEM # Page 4
• Elmer's Two-mile Creek (significant flood mitigation improvements are currently
scheduled for 2007-2009, floodplain mapping witl be updated subsequent to
completing these improvements.)
• Gregory Canyon Creek (a draft floodplain mapping study has been submitted to the
City and will be issued for public review in 2007.)
• Bluebell Canyon / King's Gulch (not scheduled)
• Dry Creek No. 2(not scheduled)
• Skunk Creek (not scheduled)
• Sunshine Creek (notscheduled)
• Twomile Canyon Creek (not scheduled)
• Viele Channel (not scheduled)
4. Greenways Master Plan - The Greenways Program is unique in that it combines objectives
from various city work programs including:
• Riparian, floodplain & wetland protection and restoration (Habitat)
• Water quality enhancement
• Storm drainage (Flood Mitigation)
• Alternative transportation routes for pedestrians and bicyclists (Trails)
• Recreation
• Protection of cultural resources
It is anticipated work on updating the Greenways Master Plan will begin in 2007. The
Greenways Program has been expanded to include all of the city's major drainageways and
therefore will capture and consolidate any related flood mitigation plans.
Water Quality Strategic Plan (see description under A.4 above.)
PUBLIC COMMENT AND PROCESS:
There will be a public involvement process defined for each strategic/master plans. The type and
extent of the public involvement process will be unique for eacb pLan. In all cases the
strategic/master plans will be submitted to the WRAB, Planning Board and City Council for
approval.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Business Plan Blueprint Dated January 17, 2006
B. Summary of Raw Water Master Plan - 1989
C. Summary Treated Water Master Plan - 2000
D. Summary of Wastewater Collection System Master Plan - 2003
E. Summary of Wastewater Treatment Master Plan - 2002
F. Summary of Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan - 2004
G. Summary of the Stormwater Collection System Master Plan and Gunbarrel Area Outfall
Systems Planning Study
H. Summary of the Boulder and Adjacent County Major Drainageway Planning
I. Summary of Greenways Master Plan - 2001
J. Departmental Master Planning and Strategic Planning Handbook - 2006
K. Source Water Strategic Plan Outline - 2006
AGENDA ITEM # Page 5
CITY OF
BOULDER
BUSINESS
PLAN
BLUEPRINT
Revision date 1-17-06
BUSINESS PLAN BLUEPRINT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
City Manager's Introduction .............................................................3
Executive Summary ....................................................................... 4
BVCP and the Business Plan ..................................................................................6
Funding Plans .................................................................................8
Fiscally Constrained Plan . ..................................................................8
Action Plan ................................................................................... 8
Vision Plan .....................................................................................9
Department Business Plans .............................................................. 10
Step 1 Clarify Mission ........................................ ..............................10
Step 2 Create an Investment Strategy .......................................................10
Step 3 Prioritize Programs ..................................................................12
Step 4 Categorize Service Levels ...........................................................13
Step 5 Assess Opportunities ................................................................ 14
Step 6 Review with Peers and City Manager ............................................. 14
Step 7 Apply Strategic Funding Screen ................................................... 14
Additional Resources ........................................................................ 15
Budget Models ................................................................................ 15
Guidance for Internal Service Providers ...................................................15
S.W.O.T. Analysis .............................:...............................................16
Addendum - First Year Implementation ...................................................17
Attachment A -Sample Format ...............................................................21
CITY MANAGER'S INTRODUCTION
Municipalities across the country have created business plans to address a
wide variety of challenges. While scope and content of a business plan may
vary, in general, a business plan is a written document that describes a
business, its objectives, strategies, market and financial forecast. I believe that
achieving fiscal stability and creating a framework for making strategic
decisions about funding priorities are our city's most pressing challenges and should be the focus of
our business plan.
The City of Boulder has concentrated for the past several years on cutting expenditures to bring
them into balance with our reduced revenues. Now it is time for us to refine our remaining service
base to achieve ow missions more efficiently. We also need to consider how to be strategic about
future growth in revenues and expenditures. We need to develop comparable information about our
current and potential new services and examine that in a framework that identifies priorities in order
to make rational decisions.
Future growth in revenues is expected to be modest compared both to past levels and the
community's needs. Future expenditure choices will range from mandated cost increases for
existing commitments to bold new initiatives. Making funding decisions in this context calls for us
to take a more sh~ategic approach to prioritizing our needs.
Having reduced our staff and other resources, the City is not in a position to layer an entirely new
set of business planning activities on top of existing commitments. Therefore, to produce the
needed business plan elements, I propose to build on existing processes: the comprehensive plan,
master plans and strategic plans, and the budget process. The role of the business plan in this
context is to provide a focus for those processes and link them together to achieve a more coherent
outcome than would have come separately from those efforts.
To use our existing processes as a basis for strategic decisions, we will need more consistency
across the city. Each department has initiated the development of a business plan containing core
elements described in this blueprint. Those department business plans will be the basis for the city-
wide business plan. The 2006-2007 Budget will focus on the development of "fiscally constrained
plans." Next steps include the development of action and vision plans to inform proposals for
additional funding. In the absence of a business plan, it is possible that we could propose to:
• restore functions to their former levels without comparing those uses to compcting needs,
implying that what was, represents how the future should be;
• react to the most vocal constituents, implying that needs that are heard most frequently and
passionately should receive the scarce resources; and/or
^ fund the first few excellent new ideas or master plans proposals implying that whatever
comes up first should grow.
A more strategic approach to planning and budgeting appears wananted given recent experiences.
Thank you in advance for your support in undertaking this new initiative.
Frank W. Bruno
City Manager
3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As is true of most local governments, the City of Boulder's new norm in financial management is
constant rebalancing, not expansion. The requirement to identify funding needs as well as potential
areas to reduce or eliminate expenses has been the reality in recent yeazs. The business plan will be
a framework for making those rebalancing decisions. The business plan will also serve as the
context for deciding how best to spend additional resources.
Boulder has a long tradition of thinking strategically about the future it wants to create as reflected
by its comprehensive plan and master plans for many functional areas. From goals set in the
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, from areas of focus set annually by the City Council and City
Manager, and from the values expressed by the Community, City staff receives guidance on how to
focus departmental missions. To translate broad direction into action, departments are expected to
create cunent master plans or strategic plans containing key components for the business plan
including:
Investment strategies to guide the prioritization of services/programs,
Service standards, and
Three funding plans: fiscally constrained, action, and vision
The Business Plan is envisioned to be the link between the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan,
department master plans and strategic plans and the development and implementation of a proposed
budget for a specific fiscal year. The Boulder Business Plan will evolve overtime. However, the
development of the 2006-2007 Budget will focus on the creation of a fiscally constrained business
plan for both our operating and capital budgets.
BUSINESS PLAN GOAL: To recommeod strategic city-wide revenue and expense priorities
for future funding
Departments will build their business plans around a clear understanding of the core mission of the
city and their department. While mission and values statements exist in the organizatiqn presently,
embarking on business planning requires a fresh examination of these as the basis for making
funding choices. Each department will begin its business plans by clarifying its role in achieving
the mission of the city.
The City Manager anticipates that each department will develop funding plans to meet current and
new needs. To be consistent across the city, each department should create plans for three levels of
funding:
^ Fiscally constrained plan - a prioritized, refocused service plan within existing budget
targets;
• Action plan - the next step of service expansion or restoration that should be taken when
funding is available either within current revenue sources or if new sources are approved;
and
• Vision plan - the complete set of services and facilities desired by the community and
aligned with values and policies, with alternative proposals to fixnd them.
To create a fiscally constrained plan, departments will first clarify their mission(s) then to prioritize
programs into three categories: essential, desirable and discretionary, as defined city-wide.
Department leadership should approach this prioritization effort from the perspective that there is a
set amount of money entmsted to them to achieve the department's mission. They should prioritize
programs based on how critical and effective they are in achieving core objectives.
Once programs are initially sorted into priority categories, staff will designate whether the level of
service currently provided in each functional area meets, exceeds or is below service standards.
Over time, as plans are updated, these service standards should emerge from master planning or
strategic planning processes.
To ensure that good business decisions are made, staff should evaluate the extent to which each
current service has been examined to consider the following:
• adequate provisions for routine refurbishment and replacement of assets,
• opportunities for implementing additional efficiencies to reduce program costs, and
• opportunities to leve~age resources with other departments and agencies.
This examination will inform where adjustments may be warranted to reallocate existing resources
The result of this analysis of priorities and service levels is a fiscally constrained plan as well as the
coming year's proposed budget. This plan may reflect increased funding for some activities while
other programs may be restructured, reduced or eliminated. This process should also produce
clarity about where reductions will be implemented if required. In summary, the departmental
business plan should provide departments with a clear plan, based upon stated investment strategies
and service/program priorities, for where monies should be increased or reduced, based on the
availability of resources in a given year.
As a result of this strategic examination of how to best invest existing monies, staff may find that
some important work cannot be done, or adequate standards met, without additional funding. This
understanding is the basis for the development of vision and action plans.
The City Manager will review departments' fiscally constrained plans and develop his budget
recommendations to City Council for the coming year. Departments' proposed action plans will be
examined in light of a strategic funding screen that provides a rational framework for prioritizing
needs. This analysis will form the basis for the Manager's recommendations for increases to
different items in the budget or considerations for ballot issues.
BVCP AND THE BUSINESS PLAN
The busincss plan is intended to be a link between the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan
(BVCP), master plans/strategic plans, subcommunity and area plans, and annual budgets. Master
and strategic plans are developed consistent with the policies, plans, and population and
employment projections outlined in the BVCP. They provide a common city framework for
p-anning the delivery and funding of services, facilities, and programs. The facility and service
priorities and funding plan strategies established through the master and strategic planning process
provide the basis for operational budgeting and capital improvement programming.
The comprehensive plan states that the "planning period" for master plans is to be fifreen years.
The planning horizon in the 2005 Major Update to Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan is 2030 and
"realistic build out." Strategic plans may cover a shorter period of time. For example, Information
Technology uses a three year planning horizon due to the obsolescence of the associated systems
and equipment.
Master plans are the mechanism that the City of Boulder uses to translate missions and long-range
goals into a framework for action. Master plans are generally envisioned for line departments that
provide direct services to the public. Strategic plans are likely more appropriate for internal scrvice
departments or smaller operations. Departments will create the appropriate type of plan for the
operations for which they are responsible. As part of the strategic and master planning process, the
following key components will be developed:
• Investment strategies to guide the prioritization of services/programs,
~ Service standards, and
• Three funding plans fiscally wnstrained, action, and vision
The Boulder Business Plan will evolve over time, but these elements are the initial focus. For
further information on the content of master plans and strategic plans, consult the Deparimental
Master Planning and Strategic Planning Handbook. It can be found online at:
http:l/intraweb. ci.boulder.co.uslbuildinQServiceslhowtof masterplan.htm
THE BOULDER BUSINESS PLAN: A link between the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan,
master/strategic plans, subcommunity and area plans, and annual budgets.
FUNDING PLANS
I. Fiscallv constrained plan
The fiscally constrained plan is a prioritized or reprioritized service plan within existing budget
targets. The intention of this funding plan is to refocus and make the most of existing resources. It
includes rethinking the deparhnenYs mission, setting out an imestment strategy based on city-wide
guiding principles, prioritizing existing programs, examining current service levels compared to
service standards and possibly shifring resources to ensure that the services provided best
accomplish the agreed upon mission.
Completing a fully analyzed fiscally constrained plan may take different amounts of time for
different departments. How quickly a department can complete this analysis depends on how
cunent and complete the department's master plan or strategic plan is, how complex and varied the
departmenYs services are, or how well other recent planning and budgeting process have prepared
the department.
The fiscally constrained plan should provide clarity about where additional resources are needed
and which programs will be the next cut if reductions are necessary. Equally important are the
resulting tradeoffs within the existing budget target, in either service standards or program funding,
that departments choose to make in order to realign their programs with their investment priorities.
II. Action plan
An action plan should delineate the "next step" of service or facility expansion that should be taken
when increased funding is available. It is assumed that action plans require additional revenue to
implement them, either from current revenue sources or from new sources that the public could
approve.
For some activities, the impetus for the proposed action plan may grow out of the fiscally
constrained plan, as funding constraints do not permit essential services to be provided at a
minimum acceptable standard. Before concluding that additional revenues are required to remedy
cunent deficiencies, departments must explore reducing some standards, making tradeoffs with
lower priority programs, leveraging funding with other partners, and implementing efficiencies to
make the most of existing budgeted amounts. When those strategies have been explored and
maximizcd, departments should determine the next priority investment that should be made.
For some activities, the process of constructing a fiscally constrained plan will enable adequate
funding for cxisting programs. In those cases, the action plan may grow out of a clear vision for the
future oFthe activity. The resources to implemcnt the vision plan For a specific service area are
generally unattainable immediately. Whilc it is healthy and necessary to estimate the costs of
moving the city fully into the vision for those services, it is important to break down that vision into
steps that are realistic to achieve. That next appropriate step toward the vision sbould be designated
in the action plan.
The action plan should not only be a convincing argument for new or accelerated strategic
initiatives but should include a proposed funding plan to achieve it. The City Manager expects that
a range of appropriate funding alternatives for the action plan be identified. Before a specific
request is made for funding, the range of funding options should be nanowed with some form of
targeted input from members of the public. For intemal services, convening a representative group
of customers would serve the "public process" purpose.
When action plans are submitted to the City Manager, they will be considered in a city-wide
context. The Manager may convene a peer panel or a central leadership panel to initially review
proposals to ensure that minimum quality criteria have been met.
IIl. Vision alan
A vision plan is the complete set of services and facilities desired by the community, with
alternativc proposals to fund them. It is fiscally unconstrained but can help provide policy guidance
by illustrating the ultimate goals of the community.
It should provide a full pictwe of unmet capital and operating funding needs to meet service
standards in all essential services. It should be developed based on input from the community and
aligned with the values and policies of the City. The vision plan should set out long-term po-icy
and service objectives to achieve the goals the community desires and City Council adopts.
Enhancing service standards or even attaining minimum acceptable service standards may be an
essential part of a departmenYs business plan. See Step 4 in the description oFthe department
business plan process below for additional perspectives on service standards.
DEPARTMENT BUSINESS PLANS
The following section outlines the steps used to develop a department business plan.
STEP 1 - CLARIFY MISSION
While mission and values statements exist in the organization presently, embarking on business
planning calls for a fresh examination of these as the basis for making funding choices.
Departments shou(d begin their business plans by clarifying their role in achieving the mission of
the city and should use the business planning process to emphasize its meaning throughout the
activities of the deparhnent.
The city's mission statement was reaf£irmed at the City Council goals retreat in January 2004. The
mission and values aze as follows. Definitions exist For each of the values, adding up to SPIRIT.
City of Boulder Mission
Our mission is to create, enhance, and preserve a human, natural, physical and economic
environmcnt which fosters our community's unique quality of life.
City of Boulder Values
We are committed to fulfilling our mission reflecting the SPIRIT of Boulder through
Service excellence Personal contribution and growth
Integrity Respect for diversity
Innovation Teamwork
STEP 2- CREATE AN INVESTMENT STRATEGY BASED ON GUIDING PRINCIPLES
An important perspective to carry into the prioritization process is the fact that the City does not
desire to provide only essential services. Boulder is devoted to providing a balance of strong basic
services and leading edge programs to foster "our community's unique quality of life.° But as we
think strategically, we must have a consistent understanding of the services we fund to guide efforts
to invest our limited resources.
Each City department is challenged to create a fiscally constrained budget in which services are
prioritized according to their contribution to the mission and objectives of the department and
aligned with good public stewardship principles. The development of guiding principles or
investmcnt strategies should guide departments' decisions about where to increase investment as
well as where to decrease services, if required. Recall that there would rarely if ever be a time
when thc City of Boulder would dcsire to cut back to providing only the essential services. But
to
priorities must be established in order to provide a context for potential reduction or expansion
decisions.
Each department will create its prioritization logic in terms that are meaningful to its unique
business. This should be expressed as short, cleaz statements of the investment strategy that will
guide a department's prioritization of its programs/services. An example of an investment strategy
is provided below.
Example of Investment Strategy or Guiding Principles
Transportation - Guidin¢ Principles
- Maintain Integrity of Transportation Prioritization, in priority order:
- Maintenance and Operations
- Multimodal System Expansion
- Enhancements without system performance benefit
- Achieve Sustainable Reductions
- Continue Efficiency Improvements
- Maintain Leveraged Funded Projects
The Transportation Prioritization is as follows:
1. Operation and Maintenance of Existing System (Essential) - Includes pothole repair, street
resurfacing taking care of signs and signals, addressing safety issues, eta - This area has sustained
cuts, but to a mucb lesser extent than other areas at about 18% reductions. Quality of life is
addressed in this area though air quality, quality of experience in travel (addressing failing streets,
potholes, sidewalk hazards, etc), and maintaining a reliable system (traffic signals functioning and
in good condition).
2. Expansion of Multimodal System (Desirable) - All modal system expansion has been slowed.
This area has received cuts over the past several years in excess of 50%. At this point, if a citizen
sees a project it is highly likely that it either has leveraged funds, is associated with a capital
maintenance project, or both. The quality of life aspect is that as the performance of the system
improves, more travel choices are made available and associated improvements are felt such as
connecting citizens to basic needs and activities, improved air quality, and greater mobility.
3. Neighborhood Enhancements (Discretionary) - Includes things like noise walls and building
new aesthetic treatments and Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation such as traffic circles, bulb outs,
speed bumps, etc. This area of the budget does not improve system performance or preserve the
quality or integrity of the system. This area of the budget has sustained a 100% reduction. Until
the economy recovers sufficiently, we will not be considering any new neighborhood enhancement
projects.
STEP 3 - PRIORITIZE PROGRAMS
Based on the business logic created in the prior step, all services should be categorized by level
(essential, desirable, discretionary). A service belongs in a specific category if it meets one or more
of the definitions under that level, or if it is characterized by more of the descriptors of one category
than either of the others.
Services/Programs should be prioritized into the three categories shown, according to the following
definitions.
Essential
• Programs, services or facilities essential to ensuring the health and safety of the
people and property in the community and the municipal corporation.
• Services insuring the integrity of the most fundamental responsibilities of
government.
• Programs or expenses that are legally mandated by federal or state law or City
Charter.
• Funding for ongoing operation and maintenance of an existing facility and/or
infrastructure.
• Investments that contribute the most to achieving the core mission of the city.
• Businesses the City of Boulder is required to be in and/or essential services that no
other entity provides.
• Actions required by obligations such as bond covenants, laws and other requirements
in order to avoid fines or penalties.
Desirable
• Services that enhance programs or facilities in ways that advance desired community
values.
^ Services that enhance essential services or quality of life improvements.
• Funding for replacement of an existing facility and/or infrastructure.
^ Services valued by the community and created by the legislative action of the City of
Boulder City Council.
• Actions required to meet Council's adopted budget and financial policies.
• Programs maintained as "seed corn" to provide a base for restoration in an economic
recovery.
^ For essential programs that have been reduced, maintaining the elements of a
program necessary in order to make future restoration possible.
Discretionarv
^ Creates or maintains discretionary services/facilities that serve limited purposes or
specialized interests.
• Programs desired by the community but not required to provide or enhance an
essential service.
^ Services that people could obtain through other means, private or other
governmental and non-profit agencies.
12
STEP 4- CATEGORIZE SERVICE LEVELS
Service standards are critical to the business plan in order to:
• Combat the unspoken assumption that all currently funded, essential services are being
provided at the same level and at an adequate level,
• Diffcrentiate the need for additional investment in some areas over others,
• Provide a consistent foundation city-wide to make decisions between competing needs, and
• Assist in identifying funding gaps.
Once programs are initially sorted into the categories outlined in Step 3, staff wi-1 then designate
whether the level of service currently provided in each area meets, exceeds or is below service
standards as follows:
+ exceeds minimum acceptable service standards
o meets minimum acceptable service standards
- does not meet minimum acceptable service standards.
This assessment will be based upon the best information that is currently available. Ultimately, kcy
service standards will be identified and agreed upon through the master planning and strategic
planning processes.
Whether programs aze able to meet standards for delivery of that service is a critical factor to
provide a context for funding decisions. Sometimes the community's desired standard needs to be
examined carefully, for example when it is so costly to maintain a preferred standard in one area
that it precludes offering other equally desired services. In such cases, even standards for essential
services may need to be lowered to allow a desired array of services to be offered. However, as a
general principle, the City of Boulder should carry out its essential roles at a minimum adequate
level before embarking on initiatives that are desired or discretionary.
As noted, service standards should be refined for each key program in the master planning or
strategic planning process. During that process, customers should be given an opportunity to
provide input on the levels of services desired. Where appropriate, consider national, industry, peer
city or other institutional standards as they would apply to the City of Boulder. Where boards and
commissions exist to advise the Council, they should be used to help balance desired service levels
across key programs and available funding. Ultimately, key service standards should be accepted
by Ciry Council through the master planning process to ensure that we have optimally balanced the
community's wishes with fiscal constraints.
For internal services, departments and employees served should be consulted when setting
standards for service delivery. Some reasonable level of consistency of standards across the city is
important. Peer review groups and discussions with the Deputy City Managers should be used to
test out norms city-wide.
While a service delivery deficiency is potentially a cause for action, exceeding the minimum
acceptable standard for a given service could be an issue as well. This could signal an opportunity
for a department to make funding tradeoffs as it struggles to balance needs in its fiscally constrained
plan. It could also provide an opportunity for a budget reduction.
13
STEP 5- REALIGN FUNDING AND ASSESS OPPORTUNITlES
Departments must examine existing programs in their fiscally constrained plan to ensure that
monies are being spent as effectively as possible. Departments are required to examine programs
for opportunities, within existing budget targets, to achieve city key values. To ensure that good
business decisions are made, staff should evaluate the extent to which each current service/program
has been examined to consider the following:
• adequate provisions for routine refurbishment and replacement of assets,
• opportunities for implementing additional efficiencies to reduce program costs, and
• opportunities to leverage resources with other departments and agencies.
This examination will inform where adjustments may be warranted to reallocate existing resources.
STEP 6- REVIEW WITH PEERS AND CITY MANAGER
For the business plan to be effective city-wide, consistent judgments must be made when
characterizing the priorities of programs and service level standards. For this purpose, the City
Manager and department directors will to need to discuss as a group proposed lists of prioritized
programs and corresponding service standards. The purpose of these discussions will be to share
information about city programs and services and to ensure that departments are consistently
evaluating and applying the category definitions. Following these discussions, departments will
procecd with the final development of a fiscally constrained plan.
As noted, in developing this plan, departments will consider how existing funding should be
aliocated based upon program priorities and any gaps in service standards. The reallocation oF
existing resources should be identified, as needed. This proposed allocation of resources will
represent the budget submittal to the City Manager.
STEP 7- APPLY STRATEGIC FUNDING SCREEN
A citywide review of the department proposals is needed to further refine Business Plan and budget
priorities. The City Manager will work with department directors to apply screening criteria to the
department proposals. The following funding screens will be used to develop the City Manager's
budget recommendations to the Ciry CounciL•
• Contributes to eity's fiscal bealth and scability.
~ Maintains city capital assets and human resources at adopted standards.
• Maintains essential services at adopted standards.
• Contributes to Council's key focus areas.
~a
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
SAMPLE FORMAT
A sample format for the Fiscally Constrained Business Plan and the 2006 budget submission to the
City Manager is provided as Attachment A.
BUDGET MODELS
Questions have been asked about how this methodology compares with zero-based-budgeting or
other program-budgeting approaches. The proposed Boulder Business Plan is more of a hybrid or
modified-version of these budgeting models. What they have in common is a focus on:
• Clarifying mission,
• Prioritizing programs,
• Assessing service delivery/standards, and
• Assessing opportunities for greater stability, efficiency and leveraging of funds.
Additionally, the Business Plan approach provides more of a focus on setting an investment
strategy based upon city-wide guiding principles. Deparhnents are not being asked to work from
zero to justify existing funding levels. Instead, funding levels will be examined through future
master planning and strategic planning efforts, as outlined previously.
GUIDANCE FOR INTERNAL SERVICES
For smaller operations and internal services, master planning processes may not be cost effective.
Also, the longer planning time frame of master plans is not well suited to the nature of some rapidly
developing fields and changing customer demands.
Smaller operations and internal services are encouraged to formulate strategic plans. Such business
units should build a strategic plan for timeframes appropriate to those businesses. For example, in
the technology field a strategic plan for longer than a three-year time frame, with an annual business
plan, would be inappropriate. The role of a strategic plan is to help examine issues facing the
organization and formulate strategies to address those issues. When dealing with complex
situations in a limited amount of time, trying to address all the issues involved often is not practical
or feasible. Rather, it is important to limit efforts to those issues that have the most impact on the
situation.
A common theme across several internal City operations is the need to move from being reactive to
being more proactive. Determining effective strategies that could assist departments in moving in
15
this direction could be the focus of a strategic plan. Examples offered by intemal service providers
include:
Responding to complaints ~ leadership training
Conecting errors ~ preventing errors
Reactivity ~ productivity
In all descriptions of business plan products and processes, "public process" should be understood
to mean all customers, whether they are extemal or internal. Involving key customers as
stakeholders in the analysis phase of planning is critical to an internal or small operation.
S.W.O.T. ANALYSIS
S.W.O.T. analysis (ooks at the internal strengths (S) and wealrnesses (W) of an organization or
program and at the external opportunities (O) and threats (T) that may impact the ability to achieve
goals. Engaging in S.W.O.T. analysis can provide a framework for identifying critical issues. It is
a tool that is often used in a strategic planning process. In the Business Plan context, it may be a
helpful technique for clarifying priorities or service standard deficiencies. It could also assist a
group in deCermining the next logical steps of program or facility growth to fund (the action plan).
Departments are not required to use this tool; it is presented as an option that many organizations
find useful in similar work.
The purpose of S.W.O.T. analysis is to isolate key issues and to facilitate a strategic approach. The
goal is to compile a list of signi5cant strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats.
• Strengths are posuive aspects internal to the entity
• Weaknesses are negative aspects internal to the entity
• Opportunities are positdve aspects external to the entity
• Threats are negative aspects external to the entity
For further information about SWOT Analysis, consult the Departmental Master Planning and
Strategic Planning Handbook. It can be found online at:
http://intraweb.ci.boulder. co.us/buiidingservices/howto/masterolan.htm
16
ADDENDUM
BUSINESS PLAN - FIRST YEAR IMPLEMENTATION
The current financial environment for the City of Boulder should be considered sustainable but
fiscally constrained in terms of the ability to add funding for new programs or services. The
development of the 2006/2007 Budget focused on the creation of a fiscally constrained business
plan For both operating and capital budgets. Eventually, the full spectrum of Boulder's Business
Plan will include the following three financial scenarios:
A fiscally constrained model when resources have stabilized but are growing slowly and any
increase in funding or programs means funds must be reallocated from one area to another.
An action nlan model that would be used when ongoing increased funding is available to
expand programs.
A vision plan model consisting of the complete set of services and facilities desired by the
community, with alternative proposals to fund them.
This approach is consistent with recent City Council direction on master planning. For example,
both the Transportation Master Plan and the recently adopted Facilities & Asset Management
Master Plan reflect these three funding strategies.
To develop the fiscally constrained plan for 2006, staff clarified the mission of each department,
created department-specific guiding principles and/or investment strategies, and prioritized services
or programs according to the investment strategies as essential, desirable or discretionary. In
addition, to ensure that the service categories were applied consistently across deparhnents, a
process of "norming" categories citywide was used. This process involved a review of service
categories citywide by department directors as well as a review by the City Manager, Deputy City
Managers, Finance Director and central Budget Office staff.
The "value" of a program or service to the community was discussed during this budget process. It
is often felt that if a program has a high community value it must be "essential." This is not always
the case. Also, many programs/services have elements in two or more categories.
Important to consider is the service level at which services are being provided. For example, in a
fiscally constrained budget if an essential service is being provided at a below standard level and a
discretionary program is being provided at an above standazd level, then the organization needs to
determine if funds should be reallocated from the above standard program to help improve the
essential service. Likewise, as new dollars come into the city, staff would look at adding money to
below standard essential services before looking at adding funds to standard or above standard
desired or discretionary programs.
The business plan is a tool to help have the difficult conversations around what the city is in the
business of doing and where it needs to make adjustments, what priorities it sets for new monies,
and in the worse case, where it will make reductions if needed.
Staff's role is to define and categorize the essential, desired, and discretionary programs and
services, to determine service standards for these, and where there are deficiencies to look for
potential reallocation or new revenue sources, and to identify and prioritize all programs and
17
services city-wide. Staff s role is to present this information to City Council with its rationalc and
its recommendations.
The role of the City Council is to use this assessment to help determine the budget strategies,
funding policies, and to help identify, with community input, the "value" of programs and services
in making funding decisions. For the 2006 budget, staff asked Council to look at the budget in its
entirety and not look at individual programs and services.
SERVICES BY CATEGORY
Each city deparhnent was asked to create a fiscally wnstrained budget in which services are
prioritized according to their contribution to the mission and objectives of the department and
aligned with good public stewardship principles. Services were distributed into the three
categories of essential, desirable and discretionary according to the citywide guidelines outlined
in this Blueprint. Exampies of services and programs that fall into each of the three categories are
as follows:
Examples ofEssential Services:
• Fire and emergency medical response
• Police patrol services
• Water treatmenUdistribution operations and maintenance
• Wastewater treatmenUcollections operations and maintenance
• Storm sewer maintenance
• Transportation repair and maintenance
• Street snow and ice control
• Street lighting operations and maintenance
^ City Manager oversight of municipal organization
^ Oversight and management of elections
• Adjudication of municipal court cases
• Financial reporting and budgeting
Examples ofDesirable Services:
• Police motorcycle unit staffing
• Police school resource staffing
~ Neighborhood library services
• Graffiti removal
• Wetland management
• General recreation programs for adults and youth
• Soccer and sofrball fields maintenance
• Travel demand management (TDM) programs in Transportation
• Historic preservation design review
^ Environmental and zoning enforcement (30% essential, 70% desirable)
• Senior services social recreation (60% desirable, 40% discretionary)
~ Greenhousc gas emissions reduction (75% desirable, 25% discretionary)
18
Examples ofDiscretionary Services:
• Electronics recycling
• Downtown Boulder race series
• Books by Mail program
• Photo radar program
• Golf course operations (40% desirable, 60% discretionary)
• Boulder reservoir recreational operations (40% desirable, 60% discretionary)
^ Competitive recreation programs for adults and youth
• IT enhanced government services including council meeting streaming video
• Neighborhood library literacy including summer reading programs
• OSMP prairie dog management program (50% desirable, 50% discretionary)
Each department created its prioritization logic, based on the principles above, and in terms that are
meaningful to its unique business. This was expressed as short, clear statements of the investment
strategy that will guide a department's prioritization of its programs/services. Staff identified
service standards for each program or service based upon the best available information. As master
plans are updated and strategic plans completed, those service standards will be more specifically
defined.
Staff noted where minimum acceptable standards were being met, and where those standards were
cither not met or exceeded. Where essential services were being provided below an acceptable
service standard, staff was asked to propose a reallocation of resources. This meant that
resources were allocated from desired or discretionary services/programs to higher
priority services/programs in order to achieve the minimum service standards in that essential area.
An example of this occurred in the area of major maintenance for city facilities. Major maintenance
in the General Fund is cunently under-funded, due primarily to recent budget reductions. A
reallocation is reflected in the 2006-07 Approved Budget to enable the city to maintain essential
facilities to acceptable service standards. The impact of this reallocation will result in other FAM
work being reduced or postponed. For example, building audits and inspections will be extended
from annual inspections to 2+ yeazs, staff training budgets will be reduced, and surface finishes
(such as carpet) will be replaced only when a safety hazard. While not sustainable in the longer-
term, a shorter-term reallocation such as this will help bridge revenue gaps until new revenues are
available. Other examples of essential services/programs below service standard aze as follows:
• Fue apparatus replacement
• Library collection and acquisitions
• Prevention and intervention programs (middle and high schools)
^ Family Resource Schools program
^ IT He1p Desk Services
BUSINESS PLAN: PHASE 1 AND PHASE 11
For the 2006 Budget, staff completed the first phase of the Business Plan - categorizing programs
and services, identifying service levels, and looking at reallocations within departments. Work
continues on the Business Plan. During 2006, Phase II efforts will include further refining the work
19
done in the first phase as well as looking at reallocations city-wide - not just departmentally - and
developing funding priorities.
In January 2006, City Council will have an opportunity to provide feedback on Phase I work and
review funding priorities that will be used to guide the allocation of any new revenues for the 2007
Budget. This will ensure that Council has a timely opportunity to provide input on the use of any
new revenues or to make changes in services in order to shape the 2007 budget. The development
of the action and vision plan elements of the Business Plan will commence after the City Council
goal setting retreat.
In the next phase of Business Plan development, departments will be working on refining service
standards and continuing to identify azeas where resources should be reallocated to address
essential services that are currently being provided below an acceptable standard. The process of
"norming" of service categorization on a citywide basis will also continue to ensure that the
definitions are being applied in a consistent and standard manner. In addition, departments will
begin developing action and vision plans (through strategic and master plans currently adopted or
underway) to guide the allocation of new resources.
The fiscally constrained plan reflects the economic environment projected for 2006. However, the
development oF action and vision plans will provide the methodology to determine which programs
and services should receive additional funding when Boulder's economy is no longer in the fiscally
constrained mode. The economic outlook for the City of Boulder, including the ineremental impact
of the Twenty Ninth Street revenues, will become dearer in mid to late 2006.
The demand to expand current servicc levels and to add new services is constantly growing.
Currently, identified unmet needs in the General Fund alone total over $2 million. This list does
not address those items that will be identified once Master and Strategic Plans recently completed
or underway are taken into account. In addition, significant amounts of dedicated funding from
sales/use taxes begin expiring in 2012. The Business Plan wi11 provide staff with a mechanism for
evaluating and prioritizing these needs in a manner that is both strategic and rational. Proposals to
add revenues or expenditures will have to meet the criteria, developed by staff, below in order to be
considered a funding priority:
• Contributes to city's fiscal health and stability.
• Maintains city capital assets and human resources at adopted standards.
• Maintains essential services at adopted standards.
• Contributes to CounciPs key focus areas or goals.
20
SAMPLE ONLY
__ i
I
_ _ __
i SAMPLE ONLY
~ ___
Essential Desirab le Discretiona
Dept
Fund
OCA _._
Pro ram/Servica
Budget _
FTE .__o__ '.__
/o ~ Cost F7E i Svc Std
%
Cost .___T_-_
FTE ~ Svc Std -__
% __._
Cost FTE Svc Sttl
_30 180 Transportation Fund_ ~ ~ ~ ~
331336 Si ns & Markm s xxx,xxx x.xx % xxx,xxx x.xx ~ o % xx,xxx z.xx o '
331500 Transit Service Operations zxx,xxx x xx % xx,xxx x.xx o % xxx,xxx x.xx +
334375 Grafftti Main[enance xz,xxx x xx % xx,xxx x.xx o % xx,xxx x~cz o
510 __ - _-__
WaterFUnd ___ _ _ _ -_ - _ __r-_ _ _
---
---
- --
-----
-- --
_
--- ~
I
- --
340510 Deb[ Pa ments x,zxx,xxx % x,xxx,xxx + ' -
344470 Befasso WTP Operations x,zxx,xxx xx xx % x,zxx,xxx x xx + ^/o xxx,xxx x.xx +
341511 Public Powar Stutly xxz,mcx
'
_
-
- % xxx,zxx o
38
712
Plannin & Developmant Svcs Fund ..__ _ _
~ ~_____
Code Entorcement zzz,xxx x xx - % xxx,xux x.xx a ' -
Comprehensrve Plamm~ xxx,xxx x.zx % xxx,xxx x xx + % xxx,xxx x.xz +
> Building Pertni[s x,zrs,xxx xx.xx % x,xxx,xxx x xx % x,xz~,xxx x nu % xxx,xxx x xx
_ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ j _ _ _ _
_ i
_ Le end > Offsettm Revenues ~ '
Service Standards: ~
~
o exceeds mimmum acceptable serv¢e s~antlards
meets minimum acceplable service stantlartls ~ _ ~
I _ '
- --- tloes not meet mmimum accepWEle service stantlards
_ __ i
, I ,
1R5/2006,C \DOCUME-1\~aco~1\LOCALS-1\Temp\BUSmess Plan Sample Templa~e zls
A-~racan~ a
6. Raw Water Master Plan Summary
Background Information
The city gets its water from the Boulder Creek Basin
and from the western slope though the Colorado-Big
Thompson (CBT) Project and Windy Gap Project.
Flows in the watershed basins supplying each source
are highly variable from year to year. Because of this,
the amount of water derived from each of Boulder's
water sources and delivered into the municipal sys-
tem also varies.
I. Boulder Geek Basin Water Rights
The city's water rights in the Boulder Creek Basin
indude direct use and storage rights on both Middle
and North Boulder Creek and exchange rights. The
city's exchange rights allows the city to release water
into lower Boulder Creek near 75th Street from
Boulder and Baseline Reservoirs in exchange for
increased diversion at the city's direct use and stor-
age points on Middle and North Boulder Creeks.
Most of the city's water rights are absolute. The city
also has several conditional rights that are being
developed for future use.
2. The (olorado-Bi9 Thompson (CB~ Project
Boulder receives westem slope water at Boulder
Reservoir from the CBT
Project facilities. The city
utilities own 21,015 CBT `°~'~`~`°"£
,c;.~-,;.,.: .~y..,. , i „rw:;
units out of a total of
310,000 units in the pro-
ject. At present, CBT deliv-
eries to Boulder can only
be made from April
through October of each
year due to winter operat-
ing limitations on canals.
Boulder uses CBT water for
direct treatment at the
Boulder Reservoir Water
Treatment Plant, eithei
diverted directly from the
Boulder Feeder Canal or
pumped out of Boulder
Reservoir, and as a source
of exchange water to
increase water deliveries to
the Betasso Water
Treatment Plant.
,~;~~~,^ ,
, ~~
.-%,~~
_ ' ~~
--,
\`,'., r
ws~u~ ~
av~~a'rnie -.^
~i ~" ~._ -
,-' - r `--
',- "r' .-~.
~ ~,---'`~ ~.
3.TheWindy Gap Project
The Windy Gap Project delivers western slope water
to municipal and industrial water users on the east
slope through CBT facilities. The city has an allot-
ment contract for 37 units out of a total of 480 units
in the project. These units, when used in conjunc-
tion with storage space in Boulder and Barker
Reservoirs and "borrowing" of CBT water, can deliv-
er up to 3700 acre-feet per year. Unlike much of the
rest of Boulder's water, the Windy Gap water is fully
consumable, meaning that the return flows (waste-
water effluent and lawn watering runoffl from this
source can be reused either for exchange back into
Boulder's water system or by leasing to other down-
stream users.
Boulder's water supply system includes many storage,
conveyance, hydroelectric and treatment facilities.
The city owns approximately 7,200 acre-feet of reser-
voir storage space in the North Boulder Creek water-
shed, 11,686 acre-feet of storage in Barker Reservoir
on Middle Boulder Creek, and 8,500 AF in Boulder
Reservoirs. Boulder's two water treatment facilities are
the Betasso plant, with approximately 45 million gal-
lons per day (MGD) of tceatment capacity and the
,- - -:, '
.. _.
as _,. ~ ~i-~
~~ -
..w,e~ -~`~~ _..,- \~-._
.-- ti~y,.'`- ~``" -=_
, . - . *. ~`r ~ _ r,_ - _
``- v~xnoco..e,~ ''--- - -.
/~`- ,.--`~ ~~
~~ _
l
_- `t
`~. ` •, \•`\ '°- q~~~~~'f w~+~n,.~aanoc,,_
I "-.
_"~„ne, ~...,,_ ~e`r « .,~a 't - `
'l~a~ ,- ~ wnEwwn~a1r~ ~t~-~icaia+~nc
~
~ " ~ ~,.
aa~raic ouanaN
Bouldei Yalley (omprehens~ve Plan • BoalGei (olorado
Plans
Boulder Reservoir plant at about 16 MGD. The city
operates eight hydroelearic plants located within the
municipal water supply system. Four of these hydro
plants are located on raw water pipelines, and four are
on treated water transmission pipelines. Electricity
generated at these plants is sold to Xcel Energy.
Water provided by the city serves a variety of purpos-
es ranging from those uses that require an assured
supply such as drinking water and firefighting, to
those uses that can tolerate occasional restrictions,
such as lawn irrigation and car washing. It is recog-
nized that no municipal water supply can ever be 100
percent reliable against all risk factors and that the
economic and environmental opportunity costs of
reducing the risks of occasional water shortages are
significant. The reliability standards for the city's
municipal water supply that were adopted by City
Council in 1989 are:
1. For those water uses deemed essential to the main-
tenance of basic public health, safety and welfare
such as indoor domestic, commercial, industrial
uses and firefighting uses, the city will make every
effort to ensure reliability of supply against
droughts with occurrence intervals of up to 1,000
years.
2. For the increment of water use needed to provide
continued viability of outdoor lawns and gardens,
the city will make every effort to ensure reliability
of supply against droughts with occurrence inter-
vals of up to 100 years.
3. For the increment of water needed to fully satisfy
all municipal water needs, the city will make every
effort to ensure reliability of supply against
droughts with occurrence intervals of up to 20
years.
The Raw Watec Master Plan anticipates that the city
will maintain a diversity of water supply sources (both
east and west slope sources) in order to hedge against
droughts and increase water supply reliability. In
addition, the master plan identifies multiple-purpose
uses for the city's municipal raw water supplies. In
addition to residential and commercial consumptive
uses, the city's raw water supply has been used for
maintaining streamflow and enhancing stream habi-
tat in Boulder Creek and its tributaries and for leasing
to downstream agricultural and recreational users.
Future Service Projections and Programs
Based on extensive modeling of the city's municipal
water system and its water supply basins, it is believed
that the city has sufficient raw water supply holdings
to meet the ultimate municipal water needs of expect-
Water Supply vs. Demand
4.7UUV
4~~~~ -
35000
~ 30000
~ 25000
, ~~
ti
m
20000 j
:_
~
15000
10000 •i
~M
5~~~
~
Drought water supply Present demand Buildout demand Buildout w/o water
available conservation
Q Unrestrained Water Demand 24000 28600 31460
~ non-drought supply 39600
~ 1-in-20 year drought supply 34000
~Q 1-in-50 year drought supply 26600
~ 1-in-100 year drought supply 23600
~ 1-in-1000 year drought supply 17700
Scenarios
91 BoulderValley (omprehensive Plan • Boulder (olorado
Plans
ed development levels within the city's water service
boundaries based on the current BVCP planning area.
Future water needs were evaluated in the Raw Water
Master Plan in 1989. Water demand forecasts have
been updated several times since then based on
demographic and land use forecasts provided by the
city Planning Department and expectations of results
from conservation practices.
due to reduced supplies during drought. Severe use
restrictions would be required in only one year out of
285 years when drought conditions would reduce
water yields significantly. At no time during the mod-
eled scenario did water yields drop below the level of
meeting essential indoor needs. This model outcome
meets the adopted reliability criteria for the city's
water supply system.
Boulder's future water demands were most recenUy
evaluated as part of the Drought Plan process in 2003
and are shown below. Current modeling shows that
the city's present water rights portfolio would provide
sufficient water to meet all demands at full buildout
of the BVCP area during 275 years out of a period of
285 years. Voluntary use reductions or moderate use
restrictions would be necessary in about nine years
The 1989 Raw Water Master Plan recommended
improved management of the city's water holdings
and some capital projects, many of which have been
implemented and can be found in the plan.
More information on Boulder's water resources as well
as a Boulder Watershed Map can be found on the Web
at: http://www.BoulderWater.net
BoulJer Yalley Campiehensive Plan • BoulGer ColoiaAo g3
Plans
.~tO~C~Y~Q,V~ C~
1. Treated Water ~acilities Master Pla~ Summary
Background Information
The treated water facilities include the water treat-
ment plants, reservoirs, pump stations, hydroelectric
facilities, pressure reducing station and the transmis-
sion/distribution lines (water mains).
with this effort. As a result, the city continued a mod-
erate water conservation program aimed at reducing
the peak water demand and began aggressively replac-
ing water distribution pipes. The utilities division has
also developed a computerized hydraulic model of the
water delivery system and is evaluating the adequacy
of this system on an ongoing basis.
The city of Boulder's Water Utility operates two water
treatment plants - the Betasso Water Treatment Plant
and the Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment Plant.
Mountain water from the city's watershed and Barker
Lake is treated at Betasso, which has a capaciry of 46
million gallons per day (MGD). Watec available from
the Colorado-Big Thompson Project and the Windy
Gap Project is treated at Boulder Reservoir, which has
a capacity of 13 MGD. Site constraints at the moun-
tainous Betasso plant preclude the realistic expansion
of this facility, so all future water treatment expansion
will occur at Boulder Reservoir.
The city operates six covered reservoirs, ranging in
capacity from 2.0 million gallons (MG) to 9.5 MG,
with a total storage capacity of 389 MG. There is also
a clearwell at each of the treatment plants.
Due to the geographic location of Boulder, the Water
Utility serves low areas adjacent to Boulder Creek in
the eastern section to high areas against the moun-
tains in the western section. To adequately serve this
wide variation in ground elevation, the water distrib-
ution system is divided into three pressure zone areas.
There are seven pressure-regulating stations in the
system that regulate pressure and flow between pres-
sure zones or into storage reservoirs. There are four
booster pumping stations in the system, as well as a
pumping station at the Boulder Reservoir Water
Treatment Plant These booster pumping stations are
able to pump water from a lower elevation pressure
zone into a higher elevation pressure zone.
The city operates four hydroelectric facilities on treat-
ed water transmission lines with three additional
units on raw water transmission lines. The hydroelec-
tric facilities use the power generated from the eleva-
tion differential to produce electricity, which is then
sold to Xcel Energy.
In Z000 the city revised the master plan for treated
water facilities. Integra Engineering assisted city staff
As part of the master planning process, the city adopt-
ed the following reliabiliry criteria for delivery of
treated water:
The city will ensure the delivery of the water
required to satisfy essential needs including the
maintenance of basic public health, safety and wel-
fare such as indoor domestic, commercial and
industrial uses and fire fighting uses, except for
droughts and system failures having a frequency of
no more than once in 100 years. The average win-
ter consumption plus a fire- flow reserve demand is
established as a measure of this demand.
2. The city will ensure delivery of the water required
to provide for the continued viability of exterior
landscaping, except for droughts and system fail-
ures having a frequency of no more than once in
50 years. The following method is used to establish
a measure of this demand:
ELD = AWC + 0.65 * (PMD - AWC)
WHERE: ELD = Exterior Landscaping Demand
AWC = Average Winter Consumption
PMD = Peak Month Demand
As an altemative, 75 percent of the peak month
demand may be established as a measure of this
demand.
3. The city will ensure delivery of the water required
to fully satisfy all uses, except for droughts and sys-
tem failures having a frequency of no more than
once in 20 years. The peak hour demand or the
peak day demand plus a fire-flow reserve demand is
established as a measure of this demand.
4. Providing redundant facilities where practical will
minimize complete interruptions to the delivery of
water.
94 Boulder Valley (omprehensive Plan • Boulder (olorado
Plans
5. A reserve capacity of 10 percent will be maintained
in The water delivery system. The maintenance of
such a reserve capacity will allow a degree of plan-
ning flexibility and mitigate water delivery prob-
lems that might be caused by operator error.
plan recommends replacing the complicated and
potentially hazardous chlorine gas disinfection sys-
tem at the Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment
Plant. With these improvements, the existing watec
treatment plants are expected to meet Boulder's
future qualiry and capacity requirements.
Future Service Projections and Programs
In 2000, the city updated the Treated Water Master
Plan to reassess the city's treated water system and to
present a plan for future system development needs.
Revisions to water quality regulations and standards,
changes to Boulder's land use and zoning and com-
pletion of many improvements are major items con-
sidered in the update of the Treated Water Master
Plan.
The following major improvements are proposed in
the 2000 update to the Treated Water Master Plan:
1. The water treatment plants need rehabilitation and
improvements to their chemical mixing, floccula-
tion and sedimentation processes in order to opti-
mize treatment and maintain existing capacity. The
2. The newly revised master plan recognizes the
industry-wide problem of aging distribution pip-
ing. To maintain the current level of reliability, the
future will require increased spending on mainte-
nance and replacement of break-prone and aging
pipes. The plan recommends replacing one percent
of the pipes each year to limit system aging.
Potential development in Areas [ and II can be served
through a logical extension of the existing distribu-
tion system. Proper water main sizing and looping is
required. As the water distribution system continues
to grow, existing water mains will need to be rehabil-
itated oc replaced. Smaller diameter water mains may
need to be replaced to improve fire-flow efficiency.
More information on Boulder's water treatment can
be found on the Web at: www.boulderwater.net
BoulAei Yalley Comprrhensrve Vlan - BoulJer (olorado 9S
-A~ac~~r~ t~
9. Wastewater Collection System Master Pla~ Summary
Background Information
The city's wastewater collection system consists pri-
marily of gravity sewers of various sizes that collect
and convey wastewater from residential, commercial
and industrial customers to the city's 75th Street
Wastewater Tceatment Plant (WWTP). In addition, a
pump station and force main is operated in the
Gunbarrel area to convey wastewater that cannot flow
by gravity to the WWTP.
The July 2003 Wastewater Collection System Master
Plan Update, July 2003, was completed by Brown and
Caldwell. Previous master plans were completed by
McLaughlin Water Engineers in 1983 and Black &
Veatch Consulting Engineers in 1978 and 1972. The
wastewater collection system master plan identified,
via hydraulic modeling, improvements needed to
convey existing peak dry weather flows, to convey the
2025 peak day dry weather flows, and to convey the
10 year storm inflow imposed upon the 2025 dry
weather flows.
The city's wastewater collection system is designed to
convey all authorized wastewaters to the WWTP at
the flow rate required by the city's customers, preclud-
ing backups and spills that would endanger human
health, personal property and the environment. In
the case of certain commercial and industrial cus-
tomers, pretreatment of the wastewater is required to
reduce the concentration of chemical constituents
that may adversely impact the treatment ability of the
W W"I'P.
Future Service Projections and Programs
There are no known major deficiencies in the city's
wastewater collection system that requires rehabilita-
tion or improvement. Most existing sewers have suffi-
cient reserve capacity to accommodate future growth
and redevelopment. Infiltration of groundwater is
prevalent in certain areas and inflow of rainwater
causes major flow increases as the WWTP and sur-
charging of the collection system during wet weather
periods. Additionally, system aging is becoming a
concern because much of the system has been in ser-
vice for over 50 years.
The Utilities Division developed a computerized
hydraulic model of the wastewater collection system
that has been used since 1995 for evaluating problems
and the adequacy of this system on an on-going basis.
BaulAer Yalley (amprehensive Plan • BoolAer Calo~aAo 91
Master Plans
A~o~c~nW~,~n~t E
8. Wastewater Treatment Master Pla~ Summary
Background Information
All domestic and industrial wastewater generated
within the ciry of Boulder is processed at the city's
75th Street Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP).
Septic wastes, hauled to the faciliry by private haulers,
are also processed at the facility. Treated liquid efflu-
ent is dischacged to Boulder Creek, and anaerobically
digested sludge generated at the wastewater treatment
plant is hauled away and is applied to farmland. In
2003 an average of 16 million gallons a day of waste-
water was processed at the plant.
and federal Class B biosolids regulations. The Class B
biosolids are then agriculturally (land) applied in
Eastern Adams County.
However, producing a higher classification, or more
stable form, of biosolids could become more benefi-
cial and cost-effective approach in the future. The
Utility Plan recommended two improvements to the
solids handling facilities at the plant:
1. Construction of a Class A biosolids composting
facility.
2. Improve the biosolids handling and dewatering
process at the WWTP.
The Wastewater Utility Plan was prepared in
November 2002 to meet the Denver Regional Council
of Governments' Clean Water 2000 requirements. The
Utility Plan's main objectives were to: (1) define the
service area for the WWTP with determined and lim-
ited boundacies, (2) describe existing and projected
WWTP flows; (3) desaibe the collection system con-
tained within the WWTP service area and potential
future upgrades and improvements, and (4) provide
information on future treatment processes.
The plan identified the best treatment technologies
for meeting the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit, revised in 2002,
which imposed more stringent effluent standards for
the removal of ammonia and for meeting anticipated
future nutrient removal requirements. The
Wastewater Utility Plan succeeds the Wastewater
Treatment Facilities Plan as the current de facto 'mas-
ter plan' for wastewater treatment.
State stream classifications set the amount of various
chemical substances allowed in streams, and dis-
charge permits are issued to assure compliance by
point sources such as wastewater treatment plants.
Boulder's treatment plant is required to be in compli-
ance with state standards, and the city is initiating
major improvements to the WWTP to assure this.
Currently, the WWTP provides sludge treatment
through an anaerobic digestion pYOCess to meet state
The City Council provided direction in August 2005
regarding biosolids. This inctudes: maintaining the
current Class B biosolids land application program
with a portion of the biosolids produdion composted
at a private composting facility and conrinuing to
track biosolids treatment and recycling reseazch and
trends to see if better long term options become
available.
Future Service Projections and Programs
The upcoming liquid stream improvements to the
WWTP should provide adequate treatment of the
city's wastewater through the year 2025, provided the
current discharge permit and land use regulations do
not change substantially. However, it is likely that the
discharge permit requirements will become more
stringent, perhaps requiring nutrient removal in the
future. These anticipated limits for nutrient removal
will require the city to further improve the treatment
process. The improvements being designed now will
treat the 25.0 million gallons per day flows expected
in 2025. This flow represents the 'build ouY condition
at the existing allowable land use densities.
More information on Boulder's Wastewater Treatment
operations can be found on the Web at: www.boulder-
colorado.gov/index. php?opti on=com_content&task=
view&i d=2929& Itemid=235 2
96 Boulder Valley (omprehensive Plan • Boulder (olorado
Master Plans
~t~ac~~ ~
lO.Comprehe~sive~loodandStormwaterUtility MasterPlan Summary
Background Information
The Stormwater and Flood Management Utility was
established in 1973 and is responsible for the city's
flood management, stormwater qualiry and stormwa-
ter drainage programs. Its responsibilities indude:
• Administration and operations
• Utility rates and finance
• Program development and management
• Flood and stormwater regulation and compliance
• System master planning and design
• Public education and community outreach
• Flood prediction and response
• Stormwater quality management.
• Emergency preparedness and day-to-day operations
• Capital improvements and land management
The utility is funded primarily by monthly utility fees
charged to all developed properties. Additional fund-
ing is provided by plant investment fees for new
development, proceeds from bonds and grants, inter-
est on investments, intergovernmental expenditures,
and annual cost-shared allocations from the Urban
Drainage and Flood Control District.
menting various programs and activities in the utility
within the scope of the available budget The CFS
replaces the 1989 Comprehensive Drainage Utiliry
Mastei Plan (CDUMP) and outlines the following
guiding principles used in managing the utility:
Floodplain Management
• Preserve floodplains
• Be prepared for floods
• Help people proYect themselves from flood hazards
• Prevent adverse impacts and unwise uses in the
floodplain
• Seek to accommodate floods, not control them
Stormwater Quality
• Preserve our streams
• Prevent adverse impacts from stormwater
• Protect and enhance our stream corridors
Stormwater Drainage
• Maintain and preserve existing and natural drainage
systems
• Reduce and manage developed runoff
• Eliminate drainage problems and nuisances
Future Service Projections and Programs
The Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Utility
Mater Plan (CFS), adopted in 2004, serves as the
framework for evaluating, developing and imple-
More information on Boulder's Flood and Stormwater
Utility as well as a copy of the Comprehensive Flood
and Stormwater Master Plan can be found on the Web
at: www.bouldercolorado.gov/index.php?option=
com_conten t&task=view&id=4942&Itemid=2078
98 Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan • Boulder Colorado
.~tack~v~-~ ~
Stormwater Collection System Master Plan and Gunbarrel Area Outfall
Systems Planning Study Summary
The Stormwater Collection System Master Plan (WRC Engineering, Inc., 1984) was
completed in three phases to supply the city with a master plan to guide CIP
development. The first phase covered the hydrologic aspect of the stormwater collection
system and included a review of existing hydrologic data, development of hydrologic
computer modeling of the existing storm drainage system, and correlation of computer
modeling with existing data. Phase II evaluated the hydraulic capacity of the existing
storm drainage system, identified existing and potential collector system drainage
problems within the study area, and identified a matrix of alternative improvements to
alleviate the problems. Phase IlI consisted of the completion of preliminary design of the
selected improvement alternatives.
The stormwater collection system improvement alternatives were evaluated in terms of
cost, whether or not they provided a higher level of flood protection (i.e., 5-yeaz.) For
commercial.and industrial areas and for lines which parallel or cross arterial streets, the
ability to reduce or minimize street flow in areas where the existing storm drainage
system was inadequate, and whether or not they provided stormwater release points for
irrigation ditches within the city. Fifty-four storm sewer improvement projects, a waste
way, one culvert and an area inlet were selected and preliminary designs for these
projects were completed.
Irrigation ditches also have an important influence on stormwater collection and drainage
within the City. These ditches were built many years ago and were constructed in such a
way as to intercept historical drainage. Depending on the amount of rainfall, stormwater
flows may exceed the capacity of the ditch and spill from the ditch in an uncontrolled
manner.
The city of Boulder, Boulder County and the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District
completed the Boulder Gunbarrel Area Outfall Systems Planning Study in 1987. This
study analyzed flooding problems in the area defined by Highway 119, Dry Creek No. 2,
Jay Road, Boulder Creek and Gunbarrel Hill/95m Street. Problems in this azea were
caused by uncontrolled overflow of stormwater from irrigation ditches which intercepted
runoff and diverted it to adjacent basins causing overflows. Piecemeal development and
the lack of comprehensive master drainage planning also contributed to the drainage
problems. The selected alternative in this study included increasing the capacity of
existing facilities, providing for controlled overflows of irrigation ditches, providing new
drainage facilities in areas which had none, controlling erosion, and continuing a strong
floodplain management program as the area continued to develop. Elements of the
selected alternative were prioritized in terms of areas in which the hazards were
perceived as most severe, including Gunbarrel Road through the Gunbarrel Estates
Subdivision; Spine Road from 63~a Street to Dry Creek No. 2; and the Boulder Creek
Supply Canal near Jay Road.
~~ac~~,v~- +1
Boulder and Adjacent County Major Drainageway Planning Summary
The Boulder and Adjacent County Major Drainageway Planning (Greenhorne & O'Mara,
Inc., 1984, 1987) was a joint master planning effort conducted by the UDFCD, Boulder
County and the city. Phase A consisted of floodplain delineations for Bluebell Canyon
Creek, Kings Gulch, Gregory Creek, Sunshine Canyon Creek, Fourmile Canyon Creek,
Wonderland Creek, Elmer's Twomile Creek, Twomile Canyon Creek, Beaz Canyon
Creek and Skunk Creek, and the development and analysis of possible floodplain
improvements for these drainages. Based upon estimated damages that would occur,
alternatives were developed to mitigate or eliminate property damage and a cost-benefit
analysis was performed using the damage reduction potential, construction and right-of-
way costs, estimates of indirect and intangible benefits, and operation and maintenance
costs associated with each alternative. Alternatives were evaluated based on design
criteria, constructability and economy of installation, multiple use, and visual aesthetics.
The Major Drainageway Plan recommendations underwent received several public
reviews and an additional review by a special Blue Ribbon Panel appointed by the City
Council. Phase B of this study included preliminary design of selected improvement
alternatives, and development of cost estimates and an implementation plan for the 17
projects included in the Phase B report. Improvements to Goose Creek from Foothills
Parkway to Folsom were identified as the top priority. The total estimated cost for all
recommended improvements was $21.7 million in 1987 dollars. The projects are eligible
for funding from the UDFCD as master planned projects initiated by the local
govemment.
The Master Plan for Boulder Creek Tributaries (1985) was developed by the Blue Ribbon
Panel appointed by the City Council to develop recommendations for major drainageway
planning in Boulder. The panel was directed to develop a plan which considers the
individual characteristics of segments of Boulder Creek tributazies and which provides a
high level of life safety protection; removes developed and undeveloped property from
the 100-year floodplain using a minimum of concrete-lined channels; minimizes public
cost and relates pmate cost directly to the benefit received, and; recommends not only a
long-term plan of improvements but also a short-range program designed to eliminate the
problems of high frequency, low-hazazd flooding. The panePs plan was developed by re-
examining the alternatives developed in the Greenehorne & O'Mara study and selecting
and prioritizing alternatives using a set of evaluation criteria developed for the study.
~~ ac,~~ ~-
14. Gree~wa~s Program Summary
Background Information
The city of Boulder Greenways System is a series of
tiparian corridors, induding Boulder Creek and six of
its tributaries, which integrate the multiple city objec-
tives of habitat protection, water quality enhance-
ment, storm drainage and floodplain management,
trails, recreation and cultural resources protection.
The Greenways Capital Improvements Program bud-
get is currently funded at $450,000 per year, with
equal contributions made from the Transportation
Fund, Flood Control Fund and the Lottery Fund. The
activities of the program are coordinated by the
Greenways Coordinator who works under the direc-
tion of the Utilities Project Coordinator in the Public
Works Department.
~IStO~y
In 1984, the city adopted the Boulder Creek Corridor
Plan which recommended development of a continu-
ous path and other improvements along the entire
length of Boulder Creek. These improvements provid-
ed flood hazard mitigation, a linear urban park for
recreational and transportation use, and restoration
and enhancement of wetlands and fish and wildlife
habitat. Design guidelines were established to set
standards for appearance, quality and placement of
elements which were incorporated in the Boulder
Creek corridor.
When completed in 1987, the Boulder Creek corridor
provided recreational and transportation opportuni-
ties, as well as a buffer zone between the stream chan-
nel and nearby development. Wetlands were restored
along the corridor to provide stormwater and flood
retention and filtering. The Boulder Creek projed also
restored the riparian habitat along the creek, which
had become considerably degraded. Natural vegeta-
tion was planted and corridor use was redirected to
the Boulder Creek path to reduce on-going damage.
Aquatic habitat, which had been severely affected by
diminished stream flows and creek channelization
was restored. A self-sustaining creek channel and
healthy aquatic habitat were established with the
implementation of minimum stream flow agreements
for Boulder Creek.
The Greenways Program was an outgrowth of the
Boulder Creek Corridor Project. The basis of the pro-
gram is the understanding that stream corridors are a
vital link in the larger ecosystem and that each stream
is an important natural and cultural resource in the
community. The public support of the Boulder Creek
Project led to an interest in expanding the program to
include six additional tributaries within the city.
The city designated over 20 miles of stream corridors
along the following tributaries of Boulder Creek for
inclusion in the original Greenways Program:
• South Boulder Creek
• Bear Canyon Creek
•Skunk Creek
• Goose Creek
• Wonderland Creek
• Fourmile Canyon Creek
• Elmer's Twomile Creek was later added as a tributary
to Goose Creek because it was considered an impor-
tant transportation corridor.
Greenways Master Plan
Funding for a Greenways Master Plan was approved
by City Council in December 1987. The plan was
developed by staff from the Planning, Public Works,
Parks and Recreation, and Open Space and Real
Estate departments and adopted by Ciry Council in
January 1989. A refined master plan, design guide-
lines, a capital improvement program and a more
detailed reproducible map were approved by council
in September 1990.
An interdepartmental staff group, under the direc-
tion of the Greenways Coordinator updated the
Greenways Master Plan in December 2001. The
updated Master Plan includes an evaluation of the
program to date and historical information about the
program, an identification and evaluation of projects
and opportunities for each of the Greenways objec-
tives, and a maintenance strategy, organization struc-
ture, procedures and processes for project planning
and public involvement and a proposed financing
plan.
As a part of the Master Plan Update, a less cumber-
some process for Greenways project review and
approval was developed. The new process involves
the establishment of a Greenways Advisory commit-
tee (GAC). The GAC is made up of one representative
from the Water Resources Advisory Board (WRAB),
Transportation Advisory Board (TAB), Parks and
BoufAer Valley Comprehensive Plan • Boulder (oloraAo 105
Master Pians
Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB), the Open Space
Board of Trustees (OSBT) and Planning Board, desig-
nated by the chair of each of the boards. The mem-
bers of the GAC act as the representative and liaison
for their respective board on Greenways issues and
interests. The Committee provides a single point of
contact for the public to bring comments and allows
an opportunity for discussion where all of the
Greenways Program objectives are represented.
The Greenways Master Plan can be found at:
www. bould ercolorado. govlindex. php?opti on=com _c
ontent&task=view&id=5054&Itemid=1189
106 Boulder Valley (omprehensive Plan • Boulder (olorado
~-~O~CI~I~.,~~ ~
DRAFT (1I11I06) Departmental Master Planning and Strategic Planning
~~
Most departments have functional master plans for the provision of services and
facilities. Some departments, such as Information Technology, have a strategic plan.
Other departments, such as Utilities, have master plans in addition to program-specific
strategic plans (e.g., Water Quality) which inform the master plans. Both master plans
and strategic plans establish:
- Detailed policies,
- Priorities,
- Service standards, and
- Facility and system needs.
They provide citywide programs to correct existing facility deficiencies, to enhance
existing facilities and services, and to provide new facilities to meet growth needs. In
some cases, master plans outline whole system plans for public improvements. The
Transportation Master Plan, Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan, and
the Greenways Master Plan are all examples of plans that lay out citywide networks for
transportation, flood, and drainage improvements. Whole system plans eliminate the
need to review system alternatives when specific project alternatives are being
evaluated at the project planning and preliminary design stage. System alternatives may
be evaluated through the review of master plans and master plan updates. At the
project planning and design stage, the primary focus becomes alternative project types,
locations, and functional designs - not system alternatives.
Master and strategic plans are developed consistent with the policies, plans, and
population and employment projections provided by the Boulder Valley Comprehensive
Plan (BVCP). They provide a common city framework for planning the delivery and
funding of services, facilities, and programs. The facility and service priorities and
funding plan established through the master and strategic planning process provide the
basis for capital improvement programming. Acceptance of mastedstrategic plans by
City Council provides direction on city priorities for capital improvements. Capital
funding, however, is not authorized with the acceptance of a masteNstrategic plan.
Following master plan completion, revised master plan summaries are incorporated into
the BVCP. Most strategic plans will be rolled up into a departmental master plan, which
will then be incorporated into the BVCP. If the strategic plan is at a departmental level,
such as Information Technology, then it will simply be rolled into the Business Plan. As
part of the strategic and master planning process, the following key components will be
developed:
- Investment strategy to guide the priorization of services/programs,
- Level of service standards. and
- Three funding plans (fiscally constrained, action, and vision).
These key components will flow into the city's Business Plan.
DRAFT (1N1106) Departmental Master Planning and Strategic Planning
Business Plan Department Subcammunity
•F~y~~~~a Strategict and
~Pic6YO"
,v~~,«~ Master Plan Area Plans
Operating I Capital improvement
Budget Program
Development I
Standards
and Zoning
Previous master plans tended to include several volumes of information and would
remain static until the next update process (every five years or more). The intent of the
Web-based master plan is to be a practical, working document rather than one that sits
on the shelf. Essentially, the master plan has become a virtual, "living" plan with the
Web-based master plan Website reflecting ongoing changes in programs and projects.
Using the Web to provide background material, allows the actual document to be a
relatively short, policy-level document (approximately 30 pages). This allows Council to
focus their limited time on the important policy issues.
A strategic plan can be Web-based but it may or may not need to be on the external
Website. Depending on whether or not the public needs access to the information, the
strategic plan may only be posted on the intraweb.
Before creating a Website, however, a number of steps need to be taken. First, a
thorough analysis of the current programs/services has to occur prior to drafting the
master/strategic plan. After the master/strategic plan document has gone through the
public review process and been accepted by City Council (if appropriate), then the
Webpages can be created. The following checklist provides the necessary steps
DRAFT (1111I06) Departmental Master Planning and Strategic Planning
needed to create a master/stratgic plan and to put it on the Web. The details of each of
these steps are described in the remainder of this document.
Steps to Developing a Master/Strategic Plan
~~~ / STEP I: Determine if You Need a Master Plan or Strategic Plan I
~~ / STEP II: Develop Scope, Schedule & Public Process I
~~I / STEP III: Complete Data Analysis & Needs Assessment I
Include
Fundmg ^ Prioritize Programs
Plan Ac~ion Plan Options for Vision Plan ^ Categonze Service
chon 8 Visio
Plans
~~I / STEP IV: Draft the Master/Strategic Plan Document I
~~/ STEP V: Create a Web-Based Master/Strategic Plan I
/ STEP VI: Determine an Amendment Process for Updating
SiEP M D~anpl~. nr~^ ~ ~^a~.r ~n.r'saria~e MaA
A master plan and a strategic plan both involve key stakeholders in the analysis
planning phase and both are ultimately products of a public review process. This means
that there needs to be an opportunity to incorporate customer input (internal and/or
external), advice from boards and commissions (if appropriate), recommendations from
staff, and acceptance/rejection by City Council (if appropriate). While a master plan and
a strategic plan are similar there are some differences that help determine which type of
plan is needed by your department or program.
To determine if you need a master plan or a strategic plan, please review the table
below.
DRAFT (1l'11I06) Departmental Master Planning and Strategic Planning
Master Plan Strate ic Plan
Services - Does your Direct Services to the Internal Service Provider
de artmenU ro ram rovide... Public su ort services
Projects - Does your Pubiic Improvement Operational Projects
de artmenU ro ram have.... Pro~ects
Planning Time Frame - Does your Longer planning time Shorter planning time frame
departmenUprogram need to focus on a.. frame (15 years) that is (5 years) that is less tied to
tied to the BVCP the BVCP
(population, employment,
and land use ro'ections
Approval Process - Does your Planning Board, Other Advisory Board (if
departmenbprogram's plan need... Advisory Board(s), and appropriate) and City
City Council Acceptance Council (if appropriate)
Acce tance
While some department/program planning efforts fit clearly into a master plan or a
strategic plan, many may fit in both categories. In those instances, please select the
plan that seems to be the most appropriate. Whether it is clear which plan is appropriate
or not, please check in with your supervisor and department director before developing
a master or strategic plan.
SiEr 11: eerelop Seope, S~herWs, an~ Pub~c Preoess
As mentioned earlier, the focus of both master and strategic plans is to establish:
- Detailed policies,
- Priorities,
- Service standards, and
- Facility and system needs.
Within this context the scope of the specific master/strategic plan needs to be
determined.
Once the scope is determined, outline a project timeline including formal review steps
(such as Boards and Council review). Identify key stakeholders who need to be involved
in the review process of the master/strategic plan document. Master plans need to be
reviewed and accepted by the relevant Advisory Board(s), Planning Board and
ultimately by City Council. A strategic plan may only need to be reviewed by the
relevant staff and director. However, if appropriate, a strategic plan may need to be
reviewed and accepted by a relevant Advisory Board and/or City Council. Determining
who needs to review and accept the plan is a decision that needs to be made by the
department director and the City Manager's office.
On the following page is a general overview of the public process for the review
and acceptance of master and strategic plans. The overview includes only major
milestones in master/strategic plan development. Most master/strategic plans,
however, will require involvement of the boards, City Council, staff and public in
DRAFT (1111/06) Departmental Master Planning and 5trategic Planning
earlier phases of the project including identification of the scope, goals, and
objectives of the master/strategic plafn. Although the overview does not illustrate
this, the process of getting input from customers (internal and external), boards,
and City Council may be more of an iterative process. The process of developing
the plan may take months or years, depending on the complexity of the plan.
Major master plan updates should be conducted every five years in coordination with
the major updates to the BVCP. Changes to the BVCP will include revised growth
projections, policies, the land use plan and plan implementation components. After
adoption of these changes to the BVCP,
master plans should be revised the following
year, consistent with the BVCP changes. In
between the major five-year updates to
master plans, Planning Board and City
Council may direct staff to make significant
policy or program changes prior to the five-
year update timeframe. Minor updates to
master plans and progress reports may
occur annually. Strategic plans should be
to
regularly updated as well. The frequency of the updates will depend on the nature of the
strategic plan.
STEP III: Complete Data Analysls a Needs Assessment
The focus of this step is to analyze the data to determine the investment strategy and
develop the components of the investment
packages by doing the following:
~) Clarify Mission - Clarify department's
mission and examine how each currently
funded service contributes to achieving it. For
example, part of the mission of the
Transportation Department is to provide
mobility and access that is safe and
convenient while also minimizing auto
congestion, air pollution, and noise.
Transportation currently maintains the high-
frequency community transit network bus
service which helps the department achieve its
mission.
~ T/P ~
!f may be helpfuf to do a SWOT
Assessment as part of Sfep ?;
Ctarify Mission. A SWOT
Assessment /ooks at the inferr~al
- strengths (S) and w~akness (W) of
;an organizafion ar program and at
'the external opportunifies `~O) and
=threats~(T) that may impact fhe ~
~bility to achieve goals: See
~~~~Attachment~~~A for an example. ~~ ~
DRAFT (1/11I06) Departmental Master Planning and Strategic Planning
Overview of Process for Develop master! Mas[edStrategic Plan Coordination
sirategic plannmg Committee consists of staff involved
Review & Acceptance scope, schedule and in dept master plans and meets
quarterly The committee is led by
process PPAP Coordinator and the
committee:
Ensures master plans are consistent
Submit overview of Wi~h BVCP, overall city policies, and
planning p~ocess and objectives
schedule to Masterl Provides policy and system level
Strategic Plan coordination and communication
Coordinator between specific departments and
Committee for review/ master plans
commenL Ensures use of consistent planning
Check in with information and forecasts
City Manager's Reviews master plans and assess
O~ce on pollicy impacts on city progrems, plans and
direction for policies ,
major policy
issues
Process Develop draft masterl
temaVextemal strategic plan
customers)
Submit drak plan for
review/comment to
Master/Strategic Plan
Coordination
Committee
V Process Finalize master!
ternal/extemal strategic plan for
review
customers)
- - STRATEGIC PLAN MASTER PA N
Pianning Board:
if appropriate, present Present plan to Reviews all master
plan to Advisory Board Advisory Board(s) for plans for consistency
for review and Includes Public review and with goals, policies, and
recommendation to City Hearing recommendation to City growih projections of
Council Council BVCP and
subcommuniry
lans
p
Reviews master plans
to ensure coordination
Present plan [o and integration among
Planning Board for departmental programs
revfew and and goals
recommendation to City Makes recommendation
Council to City Council on
acceptan~e
If appropriate, present
plan to City Council for Present plan to City
review and motion to Includes Public __ Council for review and
accept or not accept the Hearing motion to accept or not
plan accept the plan
~ Master plan summary and
policy changes are adopted
'Strate ic lan investment
9 P wrth BVCP & investment
strategy and three funding strategy antl three funding
plans are incorpora[ed in~o
plans are incorporated into
~ cdy's Business Plan_ city's Business Plan.
6
DRAFT (1/11106) Departmental Master Planning and Strategic Planning
2) Create an lnvestment Strategy and Prioritize Programs - If it hasn't been
developed, create a fiscally constrained budget in which services are prioritized
according to their contribution to the mission and objectives of the department/program.
All services should be prioritized into the three categories described below, according to
the following principles (further definition of the princrples is provided in the Business
PJan Blueprint):
~ Essential - programs, services or facilities essential to ensuring the health and
safety of the people and property in the community and municipal corporation.
~ Desirable - services that enhance programs or facilities in ways that advance
desired community values.
~ Discretionary - creates or maintains discretionary services/facilities that serve
limited purposes or specialized interests.
Articulate, in the form of a clear investment strategy, the logic used to prioritize the
funding for programs.
3) Categorize Service Levels - Identify key standards for services. Use industry
standards, peer city information' and/or customer survey information to inform the
development of standards (see Attachment B for a list of peer cities). Apply the
standards and gauge the level of service currently provided in each area as:
~ Exceeds minimum acceptable service standards,
~ Meets minimum acceptable service standards, or
~ Below minimum acceptable service standards.
4) Determine lnvestment Packages - The analysis mentioned above will help
determine what items will be included in the three investment packages: Fiscally
Constrained Plan, Action Plan and the Vision
Plan. The Fiscally Constrained Plan will
include those items that are currently funded.
The Action Plan will include the next steps that
should be taken when funding is available to
either restore or expand services. The Vision
!n order to make
Action Plan is in
Vision Plan, it m:
to becrin with vor.
thaf your
nent with your
Plan is the complete set of desired services
and facilities. Please include funding options for the Action Plan and the Vision Plan.
STEP IY: Dra~ the Master/S'~ategic Plan Document
The analysis completed in the previous step feeds into drafting the actual
master/strategic plan document.
' When collecting peer city information determine the range of other data that would help inform this
master/strategic plan. For example, in addition to service standards, funding and investment strategies
would be useful data.
DRAFT (1111/06) Departmental Master Planning and Strategic Planning
1) ldentify Information that Counci! Needs to Make a Decision - Focus the
master/strategic plan on what Council needs to make a decision. Remember to keep
your audience in perspective as you write the plan. Ask yourself the following question
to ensure that the content of the master/strategic plan is relevant:
~ What information does Council need in order to make a decision?
During the analysis phase and public
process part of the master/strategic planning,
there may be a lot of additional material that
is generated. While this information is
important, it does not need to be included in
the master/strategic plan document. This
type of supplemental information can instead
be added as Webpages to the Web-based
master/strategic plan or as attachments to
the document, as appropriate.
2) Write the Master/Strategic Plan
Document- In order to provide consistency
among departments in plan format and
content lease follow to the extent possibfe
l !1~'
Since Council is your primary
audience, it is important to provide a
document fhat is undersfandable in ~
short amount of time. Therefore, the
master/sfrategic plar~ document
should be more of an executive
summary (meaning, it shauld be
around 30 pages in fength). Rafher
than producing a fext heavy
dacumenf, it may be more
appropriate to rnclude charts and
graphs in order to more easily
,p , ,
the basic framework outlined below. To accommodate variations in master/strategic
plan scope, purpose and needs, the framework may be modified.
Introduction
~ State the purpose of the master/strategic plan
~ Briefly explain what the plan contains
~- Include goals and objectives of the master/strategic plan
Y Briefly explain who the department is/role in the city organization (if necessary)
What is a X(insert name of department/program here) Master/Strategic Plan?
- Define what a X master/strategic plan is and when it was first adopted
o When were the previous updates?
: How does the X master/strategic plan fit into citywide planning efforts?
o Clarify how this master/strategic plan relates to the BVCP and other
master/strategic plans (if relevant).
o Clarify relationship to city goals (if relevant). For example, for FAM the
Council goals were identified relative to environmentaf and fiscally
sustainability/economic vitality.
;> What is different about this master/strategic plan in relation to an earlier version
of the X master/strategic plan?
o What has changed since the last update of the master/strategic plan?
DRAFT (1/11l06) Departmental Master Planning and Strategic Pianning
• Explain the work that has been implemented/completed during the
period since the original master/strategic plan was adopted. For
instance, maintenance backlog has been reduced from $5.5 to $3.5
million since the previous FAM Master Plan in 1998.
Y Why is this master/strategic plan being updated?
~ How does the X master/strategic plan affect daily life in Boulder?
Overall Approach to the Plan
~ Briefly explain the current environment (where are we today)
o Highlight strengths and weaknesses
~ Identify the guiding principles
Investment Program
~ How is the department/ program currently funded?
y Overall, what are some of the major funding issues?
Investment Strategy
:> Describe the investment strategy in
general terms.
~ Describe the three investment
packages:
o Fiscallv Constrained Plan
(Current Fundinq) - is a
prioritized, refocused service
plan within existing budget
targets.
o Action Plan - the next step of
service expansion or restoration
that should be taken when
funding is available either within
TIP
It would be helpfcrl to work with the
budget analysfs to draft the
Invesfinent Program section, which
includes the Invesfinent Strategy
and Policies. As this section is
created, remember fhaf the focus for
the lnvestment Sfrategy is on what
Council, and therefore the
community, gets wlth each
investmenf packaye (r.e., what does
the additianal money "buy" t'or the
cammunitvl.
current revenue sources or if
new sources are approved (should become available). The action plan
should address which service(s) are most in need of restoration, growth,
or addition. It should identify cost to meet the need, the service level
currently provided, the level the plan would move the service to, and
alternative sources of funding.
o Vision Plan - the complete set of services and facilities desired by the
community and aligned with values and policies, with alternative proposals
to fund them. This plan should reflect the desired mix and level of
services, the cost of providing it, and a recommendation for the source
and timing of funding.
- Explain major differences between investment packages
- Highlight options for funding the action plan and vision plan
DRAFT (1/11106) Departmental Master Planning and Strategic Planning
~ Note that the detailed analysis used to develop the investment strategy should
not be included in the actual text of the master/strategic plan. However, in
general terms, the following should be briefly explained:
o Prioritizing Programs - define the logic used to prioritize the funding for
programs (or the "guiding
principles" used for this purpose).
o Service Standards - key service
standards should be accepted by
Council through the
master/strategic planning
process.
Investment Policies
y
between investment packages, if is
very helpfu! to use graphics,
especiaNy thase that can show the
important aspects a6out what rs
drfferent befween each of the #hree
funding plans.
Briefly explain the investment policies ~`
used to develop the investment strategy
o Highlight how items were prioritized (for example,
safety, the next highest priority is maintenance)
the highest priority is
Key Policies/ Focus Areas/ Issues (for Council consideration)
:- Describe the key policies/issues for the X master/strategic plan
~ How do the key policies/issues relate to the strategies reflected in the investment
programs (current funding, action plan, and vision plan)?
o What is the situation under each investment plan (current funding, action
plan and vision plan)?
• Identify key strategies used to implement each investment plan
(current funding, action plan and vision plan)?
Other Plan Elements (if appropriate)
With transportation there were plans for each mode (auto, transit, bike, pedestrian) that
related to the overall Transportation Master Plan. Details of each of these plans were
provided on the Web but not in the master plan document that went to Council for
approval.
:- What policies are important in these other plans and how do they relate to the X
master/strategic plan?
Measuring Performance
y Strategy/methodology for measuring
performance
- How does the plan perform given the
investment?
X
T113
gaod place fo use
is to help explain how =
~nce is im~aacted based o
o Evaluate the previous
master/strategic plan performance measures and evaluate any additional
perFormance measures relative to the updated X master/strategic plan.
lo
DRAFT (1/11/O6) Departmental Master Planning and Strategic Planning
- Explain, how performance is impacted based on the three investment packages
Next Steps/ Implementation
- Summarize what will happen next
- How will this mastedstrategic plan be implemented?
Aside from the sections mentioned above, a good way to include other relevant
information is by using text boxes. The boxes may include supplemental information
such as important facts or relevant terminology/definitions, often asked questions that
would help Council understand the issues, and/or policies that need to be highlighted.
Another important piece of information that may be useful in a text box is major planning
assumptions (especially if there is a big change since the last master/strategic plan). In
order to keep the document short and concise, there may be a need for appendices. (If
you are using the Web, these appendices can simply be Webpages). For instance,
information that can be found in the appendices or on the Web could include an
overview of the public process used to develop the plan, work plan, and/or the analysis
used to determine investment packages.
S'iEP Y: 6~ Thnul~ tIN Aceeptana Pn~ss
Determining who needs to review and accept the plan is a decision that should have
been made earlier in this process (as mentioned in Step II). Based on that decision, the
master/strategic plan will be reviewed by the relevant staff, Advisory Board(s), Planning
Board, and/or City Council. These meetings will typically involve a public hearing and an
official vote on accepting or not accepting the plan. Submitting the plan to an Advisory
Board, Planning Board, or City Council involves following the specific guidelines
associated with those meetings in terms of deadlines for material, what needs to be
included in the cover memo/packet, etc. Please be sure to check with the relevant staff
to coordinate bringing the plan to these meetings.
BiEr n: Cntle a wel~i~i ~sar ~r Str~ulle M~
Before a Website is created for the master/strategic plan it is important to review who
needs access to the information. If the plan contains information that only staff needs,
then the plan should be posted on the intranet (internal). If the plan contains information
that is needed by the public, then the plan should be posted on the internet (external).
The time and resources involved in creating a Web-based plan and the public
importance of the plan will determine if the plan needs to be Web-based (meaning, it
has interactive Webpaes) or simply be a pdf on a Webpage.
Some of the benefits of a Web-based master/strategic plan include the following:
-"Living" document (Web-based master/strategic plan enables changes to occur
on a regular, frequent basis)
ti
DRAFT (1N1106) Departmental Master Planning and Strategic Planning
- More accessible (accessible to anyone who can access the Web from home,
work, libraries, etc.)
- User friendly
- Cost effective (initial Web site and data development investment provides a
foundation of data and information that can reduce costs for future updates)
- Informative (contains additional information supporting the policies and
investment program as presented in the master/strategic plan document)
To create a Web-based master/strategic plan, piease follow these steps:
1) Defermine What Materials Need to be on the Web - All of the information in the
master/strategic plan document that has been approved by City Council should be
included on the Website. In addition, it may be important to provide background/analysis
material that was developed as part of the master/strategic plan update but was not
included in the actual document. This type of material can be included as separate
Webpages or as pdf documents. Some information may already exist on the Web, like
current projects and/or programs. If so, simply linking to the relevant pages rather than
recreating the same information in another location would be more appropriate. This is a
powerful part of the Web-based master plan - the ability to link to other
Webpages/documents with related information. The Website may also contain (if
appropriate) an interactive mapping application, like Map It! which is part of the
Transportation Master Plan Website.
The purpose of a Web-based master plan is to be a"living" document. This means that
the Website will be updated to reflect changes in the departmenUprogram. In order to
preserve what was passed by City Council on a specific date, it is important to include a
pdf of the actual master/strategic plan document dated and preserved as it was
approved.
2) Identify the Website Design and Organization - As mentioned previously, a
decision needs to be made about whether or not the master/strategic plan Website
needs to on the intranet (internal) or the internet (external). In order to make the
Website interactive, the various pages of the document should be included as separate
pages on the Web (depending on the flow of the document). The organization of the
Website will probably mimic (or closely follow) the organization of the document. The
table of contents in the document may end up being the buttons (menu) that link to the
various pages of the Website. Including the graphs, charts, and pictures as seen in the
document will help break up the text on the Website.
3) Review and Edit Website - As the Website is being created, it will be posted on a
staging site so that the "public" does not have access to the site. Before the Website
goes "live," the content needs to be reviewed and edited. All of the links within the
Website need to be tested to ensure that they are working correctly.
tz
DRAFT (1N1/O6) Departmental Master Planning and Strategic Planning
4) Go "Live"- Provide access to the Website for all users on a specific date.
aTEP n~: o~~.e a.I1m~n~n~eM Pro~s nr e~~tlN t~e Master~aa~te~~c
Man
The process used to update the plan will be similar to the,original public review and
acceptance process. The key stakeholders will be the same. In other words, if the plan
did not go to an Advisory Board or Planning Board in the public review and acceptance
process than it will not go to them as part of the update process. The update process
described below is primarily for master plans but it may apply to some strategic plans
depending on the original public review and acceptance process (see the diagram on
the following page for an overview).
1) Determine What Needs to be Updated - If it is a policy issue, then the
master/strategic plan document would need to go through the appropriate public review
process (including Advisory Board and Planning Board review) and Council acceptance.
If it is a technical data issue, then the update can be done in a more informal manner
(through an Advisory Board without needing Council acceptance).
2) Update the Information - If it is a policy issue, and Council has approved the
update, then the updated information would be reflected in the master/strategic plan
document and eventually, on the Website.
If it is a technical data issue, and it went through an informal approval process, then the
updated information would be reflected on the master/strategic plan Website. Once the
master/strategic plan document goes through the formal review and acceptance
process (approximately every five years), then the updated information would be
included in the document. The entire master/strategic plan Website would also be
updated to reflect the new document.
13
DRAFT (1N1I06) Departmental Master Planning and Strategic Planning
Updating Web-Based Master/Strategic Plan
Analysis
Publ¢ Pmcess
Wilh Intemal/
Exlemal
Customers
Develop Masler/
SValegic Plan
Documenl
Boartl Remew and
Acceptance
pt appropriate)
Qry Council
Review antl
Acceplance
(d appropnate)
Create web- ~es
eased Master/
Shalegic Plan
Mformal Review
Process Update WebsM1e Change in Masled
(may include Sirategic Plan
Board review)
Ves Admimstratrve/
Techmcal Dala~
Atlmm~stretrve/rechnmal
Dafa ~s Updated Regulady
No
Policy Changes are
Included m the Maste4
Policy Issue? St2teg~c Plan Updafe
Procass (every 5 }rears)
No
~one
14
DRAFT (1I77106) Departmental Master Planning and Strategic Planning
AuacWq~ntA: wbat Is a SwOTAss~ssnMt
A SWOT Assessment looks at the internal strengths (S) and weaknesses (W) of an
organization or program and at the external opportunities (O) and threats (T) that may
impact the ability to achieve goals.
Internal Strengths & Weaknesses
When identifying strengths and weakness, think broadly. This could include such things
as staff, management, special expertise, financial resources, relationships, reputation,
ability to learn as an organization, infrastructure, teamwork, etc.
- What do you see as the major strengths of the program?
- What are the major weaknesses of the program?
External Opportunities & Threats
External forces usually can be grouped into three general categories:
- Customers and Other Stakeholders: Who are the customers and/or key
stakeholders? What are their values, needs and expectations? ~
- Competitors and Allies: What are our competitive advantages or weaknesses?
(i.e., quality, results, cost, speed, tailored service, unique services or features,
etc.) Who else has something to contribute and how can we work together? Are
there ways that we can team with others to achieve common goals?
- Socia/, Cultural, Economic, Political and Technological Forces:
o Socia/ or Cultural: Are there major demographic changes or social and
cultural tends that we need to consider?
o Economic: Are there new funding patterns or economic trends? Political:
Is there new legislation that could impact us, changes in leadership or
philosophy, or shifts in political support?
o Technological: What are the key innovations or trends in information or
other technologies that need to be considered? Are there new methods
that are impacting our field?
~s
DRAF7 (7117106) Departmental Master Planning and Strategic Plamm~g
Att~n~ent B: tist d reer Cltl~s
- Ann Arbor, MI (www.ci.ann-arbor.mi.us/)
- Berkeley, CA (www.ci.berkelev.ca.us/)
- Eugene, OR (www.eupene-or.qov)
- Fort Collins, CO (www.ci.fort-collins.co.us/)
- Madison, WI (www.ci.madison.wi.us/)
- Norman, OK (www.ci.norman.ok.us/)
- Provo, UT (www.provo.orq/)
- Santa Barbara, CA (www.santabarbaraca.qov/home.htm)
- Santa Cruz, CA (www.ci.santa-cruz.ca.us/)
- Tempe, AZ (www.tempe.pov/)
16
~~a~~ K
C1TY OF BOULDER
SOURCE WATER STRATEGIC PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
II. INTRODUCTION
a. Purpose
i. Document available information
ii. Inform decision making
iii. Record institutional knowledge
iv. Establish city (or uti(ity) source water goals
v. Identify issues affecting future direction
vi. Establish blueprint for future source water management
vii. Identify partnerships for implementation
b. Scope
III. BACKGROUND
a. Existing Facilities and Land
i. Land
1. Watershed grants and Silver Lake purchase
2. Park Reservoir
3. Barkcr purchasc
4. Wittemyer Ponds
ii. Pipelines / Canal
i. history
2. existing status (description and adequaey)
iii. Dams
1. history
2. existing status (description and adequacy)
iv. Boulder Reservoir
1. history (ownership and management of land and facilities))
2. existing status (description and adequacy)
v. Hydros/pumps
1. history
2. existing status (description and adequacy)
vi. Irrigation Ditches
1. history
2. existing status
b. Water Resources
i. Water rights owned
1. Absolute
2. Conditional
ii. Hydrology
1. Historic record
2. Extended tree ring record
3. Droughtfrequency
10/11/2006 Page 1
c. Current Water Quality of Sources
i. Ability to meet current standards
ii. Cunent status of land use effects o~ quality
1. SL Watershed is closed
2. Barker quality
3. Boulder Feeder Canal
iii. Current status of recreation
1. Types and extent of recreational activity
2. effects on quality
d. Water Availability and Use
i. Historic Municipal Use
1. Goal of 10% reduction in water use by buildout, as
articulated in Water Conservations Future Study
2. Changes in water use since 2002
3. Historic municipal use
ii. Municipal Water Rights Yields
1. current calculations
2. differences from past calculations
3. Future water rights yields could change with climate
change or the city's ability to protect its water rights
iii. Source Water Selection
1. Scasonal
2. Availability and demand
3. Water quality considerations for operations
• prefer to treat mixture of Barker/Lakewood at
Betasso
• canal vs. reservoir at 63`d St.
• Diversions at Lakewood Reservoir
iv. Raw Water Irrigation
1. Ditch systems
2. City parks that use raw water
3. Other properties that use raw water (CU, NOAA/NIST,
residential, farms)
v. Boulder Creek Instream Flow Program (BC, NBC, MBC, SBC)
1. COB instream flow program goals
• Basis for goals (e.g. IFIM)
2. Existing instream flow program
• Decrees
• Map of instream flow segments
• Graph instream flow operations in previous year
Status of ongoing instream flow effort (e.g. development of
minimum instream flow in additional reaches)
Related studies
i. Previous Raw Water Master Plan
1. AccomplishmenEs
• Sold'/2 of Windy Gap
]0/I1/2006 Page2
• Lakewood / Silver Lake Pipelines / Hydro
• Purchased / Integrated Barker & Boulder Canyon
Hydro
• Middle Boulder Creek Water Source Management
Work Plan (aka Barker Watershed Management
Plan)
• Pwchased Caribou Ranch
• Other major Hydro / Pipeline items
ii. Treated Water Master Plan
iii. Watershed Dams evaluation
iv. Lakewood Pipeline EIS and pipe evaluations
v. Barker Facilities Assessments
vi. Drought Plan
vii. Middle Boulder Creek Water Source Management Work Plan (aka
Barker Watershed Management P-an)
viii. Water Qua-ity Strategic Plan
ix. BRWMG RIG
x. Water Conservation Futures Study
xi. Source Water Impact Study
xii. Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan
£ G1S resources
i. Pipelines
ii. Land parcels/ownership
iii. Water facilities
iv. Rcservoirs
v. Pipeline appurtenances
vi. Irrigation ditches
vii. Potential Contaminarion Sources
viii. Land Use
l. Public
2. Private
IV. Policy, Goals, and Regional Influences
a. Policy
i. BVCP
ii. Reliability criteria
iii. Utility as an enterprise
b. Goals
i. Source water quality goals
1. Source Water Strategic Plan based on premise that water
quality of all sources is maintained at or improved to levels
adequate to assure ability to continue use of all sources and
all water rights
2. WQ goals and strategies developed through Drinking
Water Program and Water Quality Strategic Plan
3. Internal Source WQ goal setting process
ii. Established source water quantity goals
10/11/2006 Page3
L Maximize storage use in upper watershed (RWMP)
2. Operate upper storage such that it can always supply water
to Betasso (zone 3 considerations)
3. Increase ability to fully use Boulder Reservoir sources, e.g.
moved the elevation of the intake (RWMP)
4. Maximizc hydro production within water supply
framework (RWMP)
iii. Water conservation goals
1. 10% reduction in water use by buildout; assumption that
we will meet this goal has been factored into future water
use projections (TWMP)
2. Water budget rate stntcture set up to achieve conservation
goals
c. Regionalinfluences & partnerships
i. NCWCD
1. CBT
2. Windy Gap
• means to increase Boulder's yie(d
• comment on RWMP suggestion to sell WG water
and why we don't think it is now a good idea
ii. Windy Gap Firming Project
L USBR may need a new contract to reintroduce Windy Gap
water from firming reservoir to CBT system with possible
effects on Boulder's units as well
2. What is the predicted yield/quota of WG water without the
firming project?
iii. Southern Water Supply Pipeline IIII (NCWCD)
iv. Statewide Water Supply Initiative (State)
1. Whatthe study did
2. How is might affect Boulder
v. S. Platte River Endangered Species Agreement
vi. Wildfire Mitigation
1. Forest Service
vii. Boulder Reservoir & Feeder Canal
As far as the SWSP is concerned, we assume that this
source (the Feeder Canal) will still be usable after tbe trail
is built
V. IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION OF ISSUES
a. Facilities
i. Capacity issues
1. Reservoirs
2. Treatment Plants
3. Pipelines
4. Hydroelectric Plants
5. Irrigation Ditches
6. Other?
10/11/2006 Page 4
ii. Aging Facilities
1. Dams
2. Treatment Plants
3. Pipelines
4. Hydroelectric Plants
5. Other
iii. Needcd new facilities
b. Water Rights
i. City water rights portfolio
l. Ability of existing portfolio to meet future nccds
• Ncw population and employment projections
• Use reduction from water conservation
• Effects of global climate change on water yield
(NOAA has provided grant funds to study this,
Stratus Consulting is doing the modeling)
2. Protection of existing rights and yields
• Wells on South Platte
• Silver Lake Ditch Company
• Soutb Platte Endangered Species - 3 state
agreement
3. Water rights decrees with continuing jurisdiction
• North Boulder Farmers
• Lower Boulder
ii. Instream Flow
1. Protection of existing programs
2. Development of new programs
iii. New water rights
1. Conditional decraes
• 1999 Barker Storage Right
• Windy Gap exchange
2. Kid's Fishing Pond
3. Parks - lakes and irrigation
a Source Water Quality (Coordinate with Water Quality Strategic Plan)
i. Management of water sources for protection of water quality in
North Boulder Creek
l. Monitoring Boulder County management of Caribou Ranch
2. Maintain cunent level of protection for Silver Lake
Watershed (Incorporate letter regarding N. Boulder water
and fly casters
3. Recreation pressure
ii. Management of water sources for protection of water quality in
Middle Boulder Creek
1. Nederland - land, dogs, and wastewater management to
protect Middle Boulder Creek source water
2. USFS Wilderness management
3. Eldora
10/11/2006 PageS
4. Recrcation pressure
• Boating on Barker
iii. Management of water sources for protection of water quality in
Boulder Rcservoir and the Boulder Feeder Canal
1. managc~nent along BFC and its buffer zones
2. Boulder Reservoir recreation
3. Parks and Recreation redevelopment of the south shore -
Utilitics should be involved in the process
4. Reservoir detention time / flushing
5. Carter Lake Pipeline
6. Erie pipeline
iv. Fire Management
1. potential effects of wildfire on source water
2. mitigation methods
v. Security
1. Vulnerabiliry Assessment
d. Reuse
i. Does reuse make sense for Boulder?
VI. POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AND AREAS OF INQUIRY
a. Rehabilitate Watershed Dams
i. Green Lakes
ii. Albion
b. Pressurized Raw Water Delivery System (similar to Greeley)
i. Raw water irrigation of larger facilities like IBM
ii. Parks irrigation
c. Pipelines (Carter Lake, Boulder Reservoir to mouth of Boulder Canyon)
d. Hydros
Potential new hydros
1. Carter Lake Pipeline outfall
2. 101 Pearl
3. Hannah Barker
4. Tram Hill
ii. Mitigation of effects from hydro operations
1. water quality effects from capacity tests
2. streamflows
e. Park Reservoir - how will this reservoir fill future needs?
f. Water Rights Portfolio
i. Sell any more Windy Gap shares?
ii. Gross Reservoir - coordinate with OSMP and Denver Water for
obtaining permanent space in Gross, used as stormwater mitigation
on South Boulder Creek and for instream flow
iii. Emergency reserve (treated tanks, Kossler, other sources)
g. Updates to Boulder Creek model
h. Continued studies of global climate change impacts on local water supply
10/11/2006 Page 6
i. Wittemyer Ponds
i. Mine and line gravel ponds for storage of CBT or fully
consumable water
j. Middle Boulder Creek Instream Flow Program
k. South Boulder Creek lnstream Flow Program - coordinate with OSMP
1. Reuse
i. COB reuse potential includes
1. Rccent change cases for North Boulder Farmers, Lower
Boulder, and Baseline
2. Windy Gap
3. Instream flow
ii. Limited availability of water decreed for reuse
VII. RECOMMENDATIONS
a. Studies
i. Coordination with other ongoing studies that could impact the
Source Water Strategic Plan, such as tbe Water Quality Strategic
Plan
ii. Yields and climate effects
b. Prioritize source water program and capital improvement projects
1. Management of existing resources
2. Storage
3. Delivery
4. Water Quality
5. Hydro
c. Other?
10/I 1/2006 Page 7